• Valve Corporation v. Immersion CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 12, 2025 · IPR2024-00477 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7 are unpatentable as anticipated by and obvious over Komata; the Board did not reach the Tsuji or Rosenberg grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner contends that a POSITA would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science (or an equivalent degree), and two years of practical or industry experience in the field of human computer interaction (HCI), including implementation of computer-based systems and software for providing haptic feedback effects to a user. . . . Also, a person could have qualified as a [POSITA] with more formal education and less practical or industry experience, or vice versa. PO Resp. 17–18 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶ 17). Although these level of skill definitions are not the same, the differences are minor, and Patent Owner does not argue that its level of skill definition is dispositive. To the contrary, Patent Owner asserts that “[i]n any event, the challenged claims of the ’260 Patent are patentable under either . . . definition.” Id. at 18. We apply Petitioner’s level of skill but would have reached the same result had we applied Patent Owner’s.” slip op. at 6

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

    “As we explained in our Institution Decision, we disagreed then, and still disagree, “that the second pressure must be detected after the first pressure is detected (or that the third pressure must be detected after the first pressure is detected) simply because the second pressure is greater than the first pressure (and the third pressure is greater than the second pressure).” Dec. 27. As we explained there, “[t]he claimed relative magnitudes of the first, second, and third pressures do not define any temporal relationships regarding the detection of the pressures.” Id. We agree with Petitioner that claim 1 recites quantitative relationships for the pressures, not temporal relationships. Reply 4. For example, claim 1 requires “the second pressure greater than the first pressure” but says nothing about when the second pressure must be greater than the first pressure. A key misconception undergirding Patent Owner’s argument is its statement that “a ‘first pressure’ must first exist before the invention can detect that the ‘second pressure’ is greater.” PO Resp. 27 (emphasis added). The claim does not require detecting that the second pressure is greater than the first pressure. Limitation [1c] simply says, “detect a second pressure on the first input device, the second pressure greater than the first pressure.” In other words, all the detection that this limitation requires is detecting a second pressure. The claim then observes that the second pressure is greater than the first pressure but does not require detecting this. Limitation [1e] similarly detects pressure but not the comparison: “detect a third pressure on the first input device, the third pressure greater than the second pressure.” Thus, it does not follow that “a ‘first pressure’ must first exist before the invention can detect that the ‘second pressure’ is greater.” See id. Accordingly, we determine that Patent Owner’s analysis of the claim language is unpersuasive.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Our decision here does not depend on the meaning of this term. Patent Owner only argues the phrase “tactile sensation” for Petitioner’s challenge over Rosenberg, which we do not reach because Petitioner’s challenge over Komata is dispositive. See PO Resp. 63–66. Accordingly, we do not construe this term.” slip op. at 13

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “that Komata discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Patent Owner does not dispute that Komata discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Instead, Patent Owner disputes that Komata discloses the order of all the steps of claim 1, based on its construction requiring the steps to be performed in order. PO Resp. 50–54; Reply 17 (observing that Patent Owner “does not dispute that Ground 1 demonstrates how Komata anticipates or renders obvious claims 1–7 if [Patent Owner’s] ordered-steps argument is rejected”); Sur-reply 12–14 (not disputing the Reply’s observation). As Patent Owner’s argument relies on a claim construction we have not adopted, Patent Owner fails to undermine Petitioner’s persuasive showing.7 To the extent, as we note above, that the claims may require a partial ordering (i.e., limitation [1a] preceding limitation [1b] and limitation [1c] preceding limitation [1d], see supra Section I.A.1.a), Petitioner has persuasively shown that Komata discloses such ordering. a. Summary as to Claim 1 For the above reasons, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is anticipated by and would have been obvious over Komata. 3. Dependent Claims 2–7 Petitioner also contends that claims 2–7 would have been obvious over Komata. Pet. 28–35. Patent Owner does not dispute these dependent claims. Petitioner provides detailed explanations indicating where Komata teaches or suggests the limitations of claims 2–7, supported by Mr. Ward’s testimony. Id. We determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 2–7 are anticipated by and would have been obvious over Komata.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 7,336,260 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,336,260
• Valve Corporation v. Immersion CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 12, 2025 · IPR2024-00478 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–19 are unpatentable because Petitioner proved that Rosenberg I anticipates them.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field, plus at least two years of industry or graduate level experience with software engineering, haptics programming, and/or human-computer interaction, including experience with user-interfaces and applications involving touchscreens, touchpads, and related technologies.” slip op. at 7

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

    “feedback that simulates a mechanical detent.” PO Resp. 28; Sur-reply 3. Petitioner “does not explicitly disagree” that a virtual detent is “vibrotactile feedback that simulates a mechanical detent.” Reply 2. Petitioner asserts that “[i]f there is a dispute, it is whether Rosenberg I’s vibrotactile feedback ‘simulates a mechanical detent’ because [Patent Owner] says such simulation requires a sense of mechanical resistance and Rosenberg I allegedly lacks such simulated resistance.” Id. (citing PO Resp. 58–59).” slip op. at 8

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

    “To the extent Patent Owner urges us to require virtual detents to vary on a system or application basis, we do not find this interpretation required by the claims or specification either. Although the claims refer to “a plurality of systems,” they do not recite different detent profiles for each of those systems. Claim 1, for example, recites “receiving a detent profile associated with one of the systems.” The other claims are similar. Patent Owner’s reliance on non-limiting specification language is also unavailing. E.g., Ex. 1001, 8:38–46 (“can” and “may”), 4:30–44 (“embodiment” and “may”).” slip op. at 13

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

    “supports its proposed construction. See PO Resp. 32. Patent Owner argues that claim 15 recites a “system comprising” “an input device configured to control one of a plurality of systems,” and hence “the recited plurality of systems are subsystems in addition to the containing system.” Id. We question how this point supports Patent Owner’s proposal because this does not address why each system must “provide[] context for virtual detents.” But regardless, we find it unpersuasive because claim 15’s preamble is not limiting (merely reciting “A system comprising”). See Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 802 F.3d 1283, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[P]reamble language that merely states the purpose or intended use of an invention is generally not treated as limiting the scope of the claim.”); see also Tr. 80:4– 8 (Patent Owner conceding that the preamble is non-limiting). Nor is there any explicit language in claim 15 that would exclude any particular system, such as the system recited in the preamble, from the recited “plurality of systems.”” slip op. at 9

  Patent outcomesUS 9,430,042 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 9,430,042
• Njoy, LLC / Njoy Holdings, Inc. v. Juul Labs, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 10, 2025 · IPR2024-00231 · APJ Avelyn M Ross · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 14–16, 18, 27–29, 31, and 32 were not proven unpatentable because the asserted references failed to establish the claimed airflow path or a reason to make the proposed combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposed levels of skill are similar and differ in that Petitioner’s relevant degrees and corresponding two years of experience additionally includes “industrial design” and “product design” and familiarity with “electrically powered vaporizing articles, their components or the underlying technologies” where Patent Owner requires two years of experience “designing electro-mechanical consumer products or an advanced degree.” Compare Pet. 7, with PO Resp. 2. Patent Owner alleges that “Petitioner has failed to establish unpatentability under either standard,” indicating that the level of skill in the art is not a dispositive issue. PO Resp. 3. In light of the record before us, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Based on our review of the ’123 patent and the prior art of record, we determine that the definition offered by Petitioner comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand the ’123 patent and the prior art. We note that the outcome of this Decision would be the same under Patent Owner’s proposed definition.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther

    “In this case, Mr. McAlexander meets both Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill in the art. As a result, we are persuaded Mr. McAlexander has the requisite skill and relevant expertise to offer testimony in this matter. For example, Mr. McAlexander has a Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical Engineering and far more than 2 years of experience in the electrical engineering field. Ex. 1027, 3–6, 7. In addition, Mr. McAlexander has provided expert consulting services in a wide range of technology areas involving the process and design of electro-mechanical consumer products. Ex. 1003 ¶ 5. Through one of Mr. McAlexander’s business ventures, his laboratory has “performed detailed airflow analyses, designing and constructing specialized apparatuses to emulate human breath, allowing for precise activation testing of ENDS devices.” Ex. 1043 ¶ 16. That said, a declarant’s expertise, even clothed as a skilled artisan, does not entitle a naked opinion persuasive weight. Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 294 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Here, Patent Owner had the opportunity to, and in fact did, thoroughly cross examine Mr. McAlexander about the purported deficiencies in his testimony. See, e.g., Exs. 2052, 2054; Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 595 (1993) (“Vigorous cross examination [and] presentation of contrary evidence . . . are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.”). Therefore, to the extent Patent Owner credibly identifies deficiencies in Mr. McAlexander’s testimony or that testimony lacks factual support or is based on broad, conclusory assertions, we will assign appropriate weight. See Velander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (explaining that it is within the Board’s discretion, as the trier of fact, to accord appropriate weight to the evidence presented).” slip op. at 12

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

    “Petitioner contends that the parties proposed a construction for “pressure valve,” a limitation appearing in claims 18 and 31, during the ITC investigation. Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1001, 41:58–65). Patent Owner contends that the terms of the ’123 patent should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. PO Resp. 4. Because resolution of the issues presented in this case do not require construction of the term “pressure valve,” we do not expressly construe this claim term. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 14

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner. To anticipate a claim, a reference “must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document, but must also disclose those elements ‘arranged as in the claim.’” Net MoneyIN, 545 F.3d at 1369. “The requirement that the prior art elements themselves be arranged as in the claim means that the claims cannot be treated . . . as mere catalogs of separate parts, in disregard of the part-to-part relationships set forth in the claims.” Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Indeed, the prior art reference “must clearly and unequivocally disclose the claimed [invention] or direct those skilled in the art to the [invention] without any need for picking, choosing, and combining various disclosures not directly related to each other by the teachings of the cited reference.” Net MoneyIN, 545 F.3d at 1371 (citation omitted). “[D]ifferences between the prior art reference and the claimed invention, however slight, invoke the question of obviousness, not anticipation.” Id.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 10,130,123 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,130,123
• Abbott Laboratories v. Newtonoid Technologies, L.L.C.Adverse judgment
  PTAB · May 29, 2025 · IPR2024-00932 · APJ Mary C Hoffman · IPR · Adverse judgment

  The Board granted Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment, terminated the trial, and cancelled claims 1 and 4–20.

  RulingsAdverse judgment

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted

    “Our rules provide that “[a] party may request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). We understand Patent Owner’s May 19, 2025 email as a request for judgment against itself. Accordingly, on the record before us, we enter adverse judgment against Patent Owner pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b) and terminate the trial pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.72. Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that Patent Owner’s May 19, 2025 email request for adverse judgment pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b) is granted;” slip op. at 3

  None
  Patents in suitUS 11,392,818
• Juul Labs, Inc. v. Njoy, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 21, 2025 · IPR2024-00160 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–48 not shown unpatentable on any of six § 103 grounds because the asserted references did not teach the required housing aperture and the proposed combinations lacked adequate support.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelDecided for patent owner

    “time it was made, we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. Petitioner does not provide its own definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Instead, Petitioner asserts: In previous litigation involving the ’881 patent – the parent patent to the ’864 patent (Fuma International LLC v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company, Case No. 1:19-cv-260 (M.D.N.C. 2019)) with an identical specification – Patent Owner’s predecessor-in-interest asserted that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the purported invention would have had a mechanical or electrical engineering degree, industrial design degree, or a similar technical degree, or equivalent work experience, and 5 to 10 years of experience in electromechanical devices. Ex. 1007, ¶¶14-17. Pet. 11–12; see also Ex. 1007 ¶ 16 (Mr. Sturges testifying that he meets “that qualification” without affirmatively providing a definition for a POSITA). Before institution, Patent Owner stated it did not challenge this definition (Prelim. Resp. 9), and we adopted Petitioner’s proposed definition in our Decision granting institution. During trial, Patent Owner also adopted this definition. PO Resp. 10–11. Upon a complete record, we see no reason to change and we maintain the agreed upon definition of a POSITA.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Patent Owner argues, and Petitioner does not dispute, that an aperture is a “hole” or an “opening.” See, e.g., id. at 21; see generally Reply. Patent Owner asserts that, in the proper context, the plain and ordinary meaning of a housing having an aperture is that the aperture is a hole, or an opening, on the housing structure itself. Id. at 21–22. We agree. In order for an object to have an “aperture” or an “opening,” the aperture or opening must be on the structure itself and not on a separate object that is located in the structure. This construction is in accord with the Specification of the ’864 patent, which refers to apertures in context of the structure on which they are located. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 6:12–18 (referring to a first end comprising a first aperture), 7:11–12, 7:65–67 (stating that the wall of an airflow passageway may have apertures).” slip op. at 18

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalTerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “large obstructions that force the air flow to near the peripheral surface of the housing, render the passageway non-central. During prosecution of the ’864 patent, the Examiner rejected certain claims (i.e., dependent claims 49, 63, and 75) over Han. To overcome this rejection, the applicant argued that Han cannot meet the limitation “wherein the airflow passageway extends centrally and axially from the first aperture to the second aperture.” Ex. 1002, 273. The applicant explained that Han does not meet this limitation because Han’s shell (b) does not include a central airflow passageway and instead places the perforated component for liquid storage (9) in the middle of shell (b), thereby forcing the airflow around the peripheral surface of the perforated component for liquid storage (9). Id. at 273–274. The examiner relied on this argument in determining that the applicant had overcome an earlier rejection. Id. at 195. Thus, some obstructions of a passageway render the passageway non-central; in particular those obstructions that force air to flow near the peripheral surface of the housing are large enough to render the passageway non-central.” slip op. at 22

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

    “lacks motivation and is plagued by improper hindsight.” Sur-reply 15–17. On the record developed during trial, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine the teachings of Xia with those of Wang to arrive at the claimed limitations. Relying on the testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant Dr. Singhose, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have known a central straight path has less airflow resistance than a circuitous one.” Reply 22 (citing Ex. 1035, 127:15–128:9). But the same witness also testified that higher airflow resistance might be desirable and explained that providing more resistance to airflow might result in improved mixing. Ex. 1035, 21:21–22:12, 127:20–24, 170:10–14. In addition, Dr. Singhose testifies that the complicated design of the airflow passageway in Xia “serves important functions,” including “allow[ing] large droplets to be reabsorbed by the liquid-guiding mechanism,” allowing “excessive liquid in the airflow [to] condense,” and “prevent[ing] the chemical liquid from being sucked into the mouth.” Ex. 2022 ¶ 190 (citing Ex. 1004, 11, 13–14, 16). Although Petitioner’s declarant Dr. Sturges testifies that a straight airflow passageway “would provide improved, smoother air flow,” he does not provide any evidence supporting the view that the air flow would be improved. Ex. 1007 ¶ 144. We credit the testimony of Dr. Singhose that using a straight passageway in Xia would have been detrimental rather than beneficial. Ex. 2022 ¶ 190. slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 11,497,864 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,497,864
• Juul Labs, Inc. v. Njoy, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 21, 2025 · IPR2024-00161 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–27 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted obviousness grounds failed to establish the claimed central airflow passageway or a reason to combine the references.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Relying on the testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant Dr. Singhose, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have known a central straight path has less airflow resistance than a circuitous one.” Reply 22–23 (citing Ex. 1035, 127:15–128:9). But the same witness also testified that higher airflow resistance might be desirable and explained that providing more resistance to airflow might result in improved mixing. Ex. 1035, 21:21–22:12, 127:20–24, 170:10–14. In addition, Dr. Singhose testifies that the complicated design of the airflow passageway in Xia “serves important functions,” including “allow[ing] large droplets to be reabsorbed by the liquid-guiding mechanism,” allowing “excessive liquid in the airflow [to] condense,” and “prevent[ing] the chemical liquid from being sucked into the mouth.” Ex. 2022 ¶ 183 (citing Ex. 1004, 11, 13–14, 16). Although Petitioner’s declarant Dr. Sturges testifies that a straight airflow passageway “would provide improved, smoother air flow,” he does not provide any evidence supporting the view that the air flow would be improved. Ex. 1007 ¶ 118. We credit the testimony of Dr. Singhose that using a straight passageway in Xia would have been detrimental rather than beneficial. Ex. 2022 ¶ 183. Petitioner also argues that the inventors’ use of a straight path is evidence that the use of a straight passageway was “merely common-sense obviousness.” Reply 22–23. This is hindsight. Otsuka Pharm. Co. v. Sandoz, Inc., 678 F.3d 1280, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The inventor’s own path itself never leads to a conclusion of obviousness; that is hindsight.”). Moreover, it does not address the testimony of Dr. Singhose that the use of a complicated passageway like that in Xia had benefits not present in a straight central passageway.” slip op. at 29

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) “would have had a mechanical or electrical engineering degree, industrial design degree, or a similar technical degree, or equivalent work experience, and 5 to 10 years of experience in electromechanical devices.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 16). Prior to institution, Patent Owner stated that, for “the limited purpose of this Preliminary Response,” it “does not challenge the definition of a POSITA set forth in the Petition.” Prelim. Resp. 9. We adopted Petitioner’s proposed definition in our Decision granting institution. During trial, neither party disputed this definition. Upon a complete record, we see no reason to change the adopted definition.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Patent Owner argues, however, that this presumption is overcome in the present case, and we agree. PO Resp. 28–32. We note that, although the claims require the first aperture to be “on the first end,” the claims still require that the “housing hav[e] a first aperture.” Thus, the issue is whether the aperture must be on the housing itself or part of the housing, as well as whether the aperture is on the first end of the housing. Although “having” and “includes” are used with respect to the solution holding medium to refer to elements located inside the housing, the specification of the ’881 patent suggests that the ends of the housing are part of the housing itself, rather than located inside the housing. First, “the first end . . . can be integrated into a single assembly as part of the housing.” Ex. 1001, 6:16–17. Second, “the housing . . . may comprise the cylindrical wall and two end-caps,” or “the housing . . . may comprise the cartridge wall and a single end-cap.” Id. at 3:55–59. The only figures of the ’881 patent that depict first end 206 show it at the end of the housing rather than located within the interior of housing 202. Id. at Figs. 2, 3. Moreover, there is no requirement to construe a claim term uniformly across multiple uses in the claims when doing so would be nonsensical. Microprocessor Enhancement Corp. v. Texas Instruments, Inc., 520 F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Here, construing a first element that is recited as “having” or “includ[ing]” a second element always as encompassing not only second elements that are part of the first element, but also second elements that are located within the interior of the first element, would lead to nonsensical results. Claim 2 recites an airflow passageway “having a length having a circular cross section.” Ex. 1001, 17:59–60. It would be nonsensical to interpret this claim as encompassing an airflow passageway of non-circular cross section that contains another object that has a circular cross section, and neither party argues in favor of such a reading. Similarly, claim 16 recites an “airflow passageway having an interior having a uniform cross-sectional area,” and there is no reason to interpret this claim as encompassing an airflow passageway of non-uniform cross-sectional area that contains another object that itself has uniform cross-sectional area. Id. at 19:47–48. Thus, the claims do not use “having” or “includes” consistently to refer to elements located within the interior of an object; instead, they sometimes use these terms to refer to elements that are a part of an object. See Epcon Gas Sys., Inc. v. Bauer Compressors, Inc., 279 F.3d 1022, 1030–31 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (terms should be construed based on the context of how the terms are used in the claims).” slip op. at 13

  • Prior constructionPrior construction not adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “When we instituted trial, we preliminarily construed this phrase to encompass apertures that are located within the first end of the housing, determining on the record available at that time that “[t]he term does not require that the first aperture be located in the housing itself.” Inst. Dec. 16. We invited the parties to “address [the] construction of this term during trial,” id., and, on the full record developed during trial, we reach a different conclusion.” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 10,334,881 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,334,881
• Inductev, Inc. v. Witricity CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 20, 2025 · IPR2024-00105 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–13 and 16 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103(a) over the stated Fells-based grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had . . . a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, microelectronics, or equivalent, and . . . two to three years of industry or research experience,” and “a higher level of education or skill might make up for less experience, and vice-versa.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 39–44). Patent Owner “does not disagree with Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art,” but “does not believe that resolution of the Petition depends on the precise definition of the level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 12. Petitioner’s proposed articulation is supported by testimonial evidence and appears consistent with the types of problems and solutions in the ’184 patent. See Ex. 1001, 1:15–2:53. As it is uncontested, we adopt it for this decision.” slip op. at 5

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

    “The parties agree that the terms of the contested claims should be given their ordinary and customary meaning, but neither party argues that we should construe any claim terms explicitly. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 62– 63); PO Resp. 12. We agree with the parties that, for this decision, we do not need to construe any of the terms explicitly. 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., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). However, the meaning of certain terms are contested, including most notably “magnetic field sensor,” and we discuss those terms below in the context of the prior art.” slip op. at 6

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notNot reached

    “Petitioner argues that, to the extent the preamble is limiting, Fells discloses the recited wireless energy transfer system, and that the system includes facilities to detect FOD. Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 191, Fig. 2; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 66–71, 96–101). Patent Owner does not specifically contest Petitioner’s arguments. See PO Resp. We agree with Petitioner’s argument that Fells discloses the preamble; thus, we need not decide whether the preamble is limiting. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 191, Fig. 2.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that the ordinary and customary meaning of “magnetic field sensor” refers to a device that measures only external magnetic fields. There is nothing in the claim language to suggest such a limitation: the plain language simply refers to a “magnetic field sensor,” without regard to how the sensor works or where it senses magnetic fields from. Ex. 1001, 12:16. In fact, the claim does not explicitly require sensing anything at all using the magnetic field sensor, merely reciting a “foreign object debris detection system” comprising the sensor and that the “foreign object debris detection system is configured to verify” the presence of FOD. The very general nature of how the magnetic field sensor is recited, without any explicit recitation of how its output may be used, undermines Patent Owner’s overly restrictive interpretation. Although the ’184 patent specification includes examples of measuring external magnetic fields to detect FOD, Patent Owner has not pointed to anything in the specification indicating an intent to restrict the term “magnetic field sensor” to only those sensors that measure external magnetic fields. Nor is there intrinsic evidence that an “eddy-current sensor” would not also be a magnetic field sensor, given that it senses magnetic fields. Indeed, as Petitioner persuasively argues, an eddy-current sensor still measures external magnetic fields—albeit magnetic fields generated within FOD through interaction with a powered sensor. Pet. 6–7; Ex. 1037 ¶¶ 14– 16, 25–29.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 10,027,184 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,027,184
• Inergy Technology, Inc. v. Force Mos Technology Co., Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 16, 2025 · IPR2024-00094 · APJ Mary C Hoffman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 3–5 are unpatentable over Kobayashi and Hshieh; claims 2 and 6 were not shown unpatentable over the asserted combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”), “at the filing date of the ’409 [p]atent[,] would have a master’s degree in electrical engineering, and at least two years of relevant work experience in the field of integrated circuit design and manufacturing.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 52). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 2021 ¶ 55). We adopt Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art, which is supported by unopposed declaration testimony and consistent with the ’409 patent and prior art of record. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:6–3:8 (describing the invention and related art in terms of integrated circuit design and fabrication). Neither party, moreover, indicates the overall result would change based on a different definition.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Based on the arguments and evidence, we disagree with Petitioner’s proposed construction requiring the corners to be rounded via a particular process, because doing so would improperly import a process of manufacture from the Specification into apparatus claims. See Cont’l Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp., 915 F.3d 788, 799 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (explaining that, generally, a novel product that meets the criteria of patentability is not limited to the process by which it was made, however, process steps can be treated as part of a product claim if the patentee has made clear that the process steps are an essential part of the claimed invention). Here, the portions of the Specification relied on by Petitioner (Ex. 1001, 2:10–20, 4:53–64) disclose a process for manufacturing but do not make clear that the process is an essential part of the claimed invention. We also disagree with Petitioner’s assessment of the prosecution history, i.e., that the claims were amended to distinguish the claimed rounded corners from Pfirsch’s rounded corners, which, presumably, are formed as an incidental result of lithography. On the contrary, the Examiner found (and Patent Owner acknowledged) that Pfirsch has rounded corners. Ex. 1002, 276, 295, 302. As Patent Owner correctly points out, the claims were amended during prosecution to include a “circular” contact to distinguish over Pfirsch’s square contact. See id. Petitioner does not otherwise point to evidence that Patent Owner clearly and unmistakably limited the claim scope to rounded corners formed by a particular process.” slip op. at 12

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

    “is ‘known’ is not sufficient for a motivation to combine.” PO Resp. 47. However, the motivation-to-combine analysis is a flexible one, and the “known-technique” rationale is adequate to show a motivation to combine. For example, “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417; see also Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (quoting Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 799–800 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“If there’s a known technique to address a known problem using ‘prior art elements according to their established functions,’ then there is a motivation to combine.”). Here, as discussed above, the record shows that top view rounding was a known technique to eliminate corners, and that corners were a known problem (e.g., corners tend to reach undesirable higher peak electric field leading to premature breakdown voltage). See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37, 39, 42– 44, 55–57, 122, 133, 135–141; Ex. 1005, 7:57–8:4; Ex. 1006, 1:18–21, 2:19–39, 5:3–17, Figs. 6A–8B; Ex. 1011, 1:29–41; Ex. 1012; PO Resp. 13, 46 (citing Ex. 1011, 1:34–40); Ex. 2021 ¶ 87. Furthermore, there is no dispute that modifying Kobayashi to eliminate corners via top view rounding was anything more than a “minor and commonplace modification” of cell shape within the skill of an ordinary artisan, or that top view rounding would change Kobayashi’s established function. Pet. 60; Ex. 2021 ¶ 86.” slip op. at 30

  • Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “We agree that Kobayashi’ s Figure 5A solely cannot be relied upon as disclosing the claimed diameter. See Hockerson-Halbertstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int'l, 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (patent drawings not designated as being drawn to scale cannot be relied upon to define precise proportions of elements if the specification is completely silent on the issue). However, we do not agree that Petitioner failed to show Kobayashi suggests the recited diameter. We disagree with Patent Owner’s assertion that Dr. Liu’s “vague, purported ‘design considerations’” are “unsupported.” PO Resp. 43. Although Kobayashi is silent on the width/diameter of the trench contact in Figure 5A, Kobayashi discloses trenched gates having dimensions below 0.5 μm, which demonstrates that it was known in the art, and required no more than an exercise of ordinary skill in the art, to create trenched features of widths well below 1 μm. Kobayashi also discloses that the width of each trench, and the distance between the adjacent trenches (which includes the trench contact), must be selected to optimum sizes . . . [and] these sizes . . . have some degrees of freedom.” Ex. 1005, 7:42–48. This demonstrates a POSITA would seek to optimize trench contact width or diameter. Dr. Liu’s testimony regarding design considerations suggests the desirability of a reduced diameter trench contact, e.g., to minimize the width of the trench contact for purposes of easier filling, to minimize the total width of the unit cell, and to minimize manufacturing time by reducing etch back time. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 111–114. As Patent Owner acknowledges, “there is always a motivation to speed up the fabrication process or shrink feature sizes of semiconductors.” PO Resp. 43 (citing 2021 ¶ 131). However, contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, these are not generic motivations “untethered” from Kobayashi. Id. Indeed, Kobayashi directly addresses the fabrication process (including new techniques to obtain trench widths under 0.5 μm) and the need to optimize the size of trench gates and the space in between (which includes the trench contact). Ex. 1005, 7:43–54, 7:19–9:53. Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner presents no evidence that modifying Kobayashi to have a diameter smaller than 1 μm is predictable. PO Resp. 44. We disagree. As discussed above, Petitioner points to Kobayashi’s teachings that the sizes are to be optimized and that the trench gate width is smaller than 0.5 μm, which suggests making other trench features of that width was within ordinary skill. Ex. 1003 ¶ 112. Furthermore, Kobayashi’s silence as to the dimensions of the trench contact suggests that the trench contact diameter dimension is likely in the ballpark of the other explicitly disclosed trenched feature dimensions and is a matter of routine optimization. In addition, Patent Owner advances no persuasive evidence that the claimed diameter produces unexpected results or is otherwise critical. Patent Owner also argues that reducing trench contact diameter has downsides (i.e., reduced ease of filling for metal plugs and reduced current carrying capacity) not addressed by Petitioner; however, Petitioner is not required to address those tradeoffs in its Petition, and we do not see how those tradeoffs would prevent the proposed combination. PO Resp. 44; see Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.”); Winner Int'l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another.”). Here, Dr. Liu listed numerous benefits of having a reduced diameter, which weigh against the potential downsides raised by Patent Owner. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 111–114. Moreover, we do not see how the downsides/tradeoffs prevent modifying Kobayashi in the manner suggested when the same tradeoffs appear to be applicable to the ’409 patent. Having considered Patent Owner’s arguments, and taking into” slip op. at 43

  Patent outcomesUS 7,812,409 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,812,409
• Inergy Technology, Inc. v. Force Mos Technology Co., Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 16, 2025 · IPR2024-00093 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 were not proven unpatentable because the asserted references did not establish the claimed epitaxial layer or the required coverage of the trench sidewalls.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner defines a person of ordinary skill in the art as having “a Master’s degree in electrical engineering, and at least two years of relevant work experience in the field of integrated circuit design and manufacturing.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 32–37, 57). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition. PO Resp. 6. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art because it is supported by unopposed declaration testimony and appears to be consistent with the disclosures of the ’634 patent and the asserted prior art references. See Ex. 1001, 1:6–2:33 (describing the invention and related art in terms of integrated circuit design and fabrication); see also Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 1–6 (Hirler); Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 1–37 (Kobayashi); Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 2–29 (Shiraishi). Neither party, moreover, indicates the overall result would change based on a different definition.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Petitioner argues that “the sidewalls of said trenches in said base layer are covered” should be construed to mean that “the entire sidewalls of” those trenches are covered. Pet. 18–19. We refer to this as “the sidewall limitation.” Petitioner shows persuasively that the disclosure and file history of the ’634 patent support its position on the sidewall limitation. Id. Patent Owner, for its part, observes that, after the filing of the Petition. two District Courts adopted the construction proposed by Petitioner.” PO Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 2010, 6–9; Ex. 2011, 23). Patent Owner also agrees to apply Petitioner’s construction for purposes of this proceeding. Id. We agree with Patent Owner that an express construction of the sidewall limitation is necessary to this Decision, id., and adopt Petitioner’s undisputed definition because it is supported by the record. No other claim term requires express construction for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “On this record, Petitioner fails to demonstrate that any claim is unpatentable under any ground asserted in the Petition. IV. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, we determine that Petitioner fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–9 of the ’634 patent are unpatentable.” slip op. at 34

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Alternatively, even if we set aside that timing issue, Dr. Liu’s bare opinion, advanced for the first time during cross-examination, that an epitaxial layer is “obvious” from Hirler’s disclosure is inadequate to support the challenges. Id. at 24–25. We accord little weight to Dr. Liu’s opinion because it is conclusory. See Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential). In any event, Petitioner does not meet, on this record, the “high standard” required to establish an inherent disclosure of an epitaxial layer in Hirler. PO Resp. 24.6 Dr. Liu opined for the first time during cross-examination “that it would have been impossible to create Hirler’s more lightly doped n- drift zone layer on top of its more heavily doped n+ substrate layer other than via epitaxy.” Id. at 25 (citing Ex. 2014, 164:16– 165:20). But Patent Owner effectively refutes that proposition with evidence that such a layer “could be created by counter-doping,” even if, as Dr. Liu contends, counter-doping may have been less ideal due to “disadvantageous mobility.” Id. (citing Ex. 2012 ¶ 133; Ex. 2014, 166:15–167:8).” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 7,629,634 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,629,634
• Inductev, Inc. v. Witricity CorporationSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 16, 2025 · IPR2024-00140 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 7–10, 12–16, 18, and 19 are unpatentable over the stated grounds; claims 4–6 were not shown unpatentable because the proposed multi-coil alignment lacked prior-art support.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had . . . a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, microelectronics, or equivalent and . . . two to three years of industry or research experience in the field of wireless energy transfer,” and that “a higher level of education or skill might make up for less experience, and vice-versa.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 39–44). Patent Owner does not contest this. See PO Resp. Petitioner’s proposed articulation is supported by testimonial evidence and appears to be consistent with the types of problems and solutions in the ’654 patent. See Ex. 1001, 1:15–28. We adopt it for this decision.” slip op. at 7

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that the evidence does not suggest (and Patent Owner does not explicitly argue) that the terms “transmitting antenna” and “receiving” antenna depart from the ordinary and customary meanings of those terms. Pet. 1–2. However, for the reasons discussed below, the outcome of our decision would be the same whether we adopted Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Thus, we need not adopt either party’s proposed construction for this decision. 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., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “spaced configuration are not confined to ferrite cores 32 and 3, and that at least a component of the flux lines will escape the cores. See Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 48–52; Ex. 1038 ¶ 54 Fig. 2. Indeed, the evidence suggests (and Dr. Horenstein acknowledges in his first declaration) that at least a component of flux will escape the core of even a traditional transformer. See Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 45–47; Ex. 1044, 6; Ex. 2001 ¶ 27. In his second declaration, Dr. Horenstein provides contrary testimony that in Odachi’s open configuration during alignment, cores 32 and 3 “act to confine or guide the magnetic flux lines, rather than radiate them into free space,” and “the flux lines would [not] leave the gap area and enter into the space distal to the magnetic circuit.” Ex. 2010 ¶ 69. But in view of Dr. Horenstein’s contrary position in his first declaration, and the lack of supporting evidence in his second, we do not find it credible. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (2022) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); Apple Inc. v. MPH Techs. Oy, 28 F.4th 254 (Fed. Cir. 2022).” slip op. at 24

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “(4) Analysis We are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that during the alignment process in Odachi corresponding to claim 13, there is a “spaced distance between the primary inductive coupler [230] and the secondary inductive receptacle 2” which is “reduced gradually and electromagnetic induction occurs between the coupler to the receptacle when the former coupler comes close to the latter receptacle.” Ex. 1005, 6:1–6. Thus, prior to any contact or precise alignment between the two cores, “an electromotive force is induced in the secondary coil 4 and this induced force is increased with the decrease in the spaced distance.” Id. at 6:6–8. At least in that spaced configuration, the evidence of record suggests that primary coil 31 produces a near-field component of flux into free space (the air space between the coils where there is no intervening core material) that is intercepted by secondary coil 4 to effect resonant inductive coupling, and that secondary coil 4 intercepts and receives the near-field component of flux in free space that is generated by primary coil 31 to effect resonant inductive coupling. See Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 48–52, 55. Thus, we find that Odachi discloses a “transmitting antenna” (coil 31) and a “receiving antenna” (coil 4) under Patent Owner’s proposed construction. We would reach the same finding under Petitioner’s proposed broader construction because the evidence suggests that Odachi’s coils 31 and 4 would have been considered “antennas” under the parties’ uncontested definition of that term, which is “a device that radiates and/or receives radio waves.” See id. ¶¶ 43–47, 53–54; Ex. 1032 ¶ 15 (Dr. Allen agreeing with this definition of “antenna”); Ex. 2001 ¶ 25 (Dr. Horenstein agreeing with this definition of “antenna”)). In addition, Petitioner persuasively shows that the free space between Odachi’s coils in the spaced configuration includes the “near-field region,” which includes the induction field around primary coil 31. See Ex. 2006, 498; Ex. 1045, 5:4–7; Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 53–54). Dr. Horenstein’s testimony does not contradict this. Although he points out that there are separate terms for inductive, near, and far fields, he also acknowledges that “[t]he region of space closer to the antenna than the far field is the near-field region.” Ex. 2010 ¶ 37 (citing Ex. 2006, 275).8” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 8,466,654 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,466,654

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.