- Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd v. Mojo Mobility Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 2, 2025 · IPR2023-01090 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 8, 13, and 15–18 are unpatentable under § 103 over the Fells-based combinations set out in the grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“at least a master’s degree in electrical engineering, or a similar discipline, and two or more years of experience with wireless charging systems, including, for example, inductive power transfer systems.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 20–21). Petitioner further asserts that “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner has not proposed a level of ordinary skill in the art. Because nothing in the record persuades us that our preliminary finding in the Institution Decision (Dec. 13) adopting Petitioner’s proposal was incorrect, we maintain our adoption of Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“charger surface, to inductively transfer power to the receiver [of the first mobile device],” as recited in limitation 1(k). Pet. 5 (bolding omitted). Petitioner contends this term should be construed as a means-plus-function term, and that the underlined portion identified above identifies the function. Id. at 5–6. Petitioner contends that the corresponding structure is described in the Specification and in dependent claims 24 and 25. Id. at 6 (citing Ex. 1001, 14:35–38 (“[T]he charger and or receiver can include means to provide more precise alignment between the charger and receiver coils and antennas. These can include visual, physical, or magnetic means to assist the user in alignment of parts.”); 25:56–63 (claim 24: “the means for position includes one or more magnets to position the receiver in the power transfer position”, claim 25: “means for positioning includes one or more members of a group consistent of visual, physical, or magnetic means to assist in the positioning the receiver in the power transfer position.”)). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s position on this term. See PO Resp. Our Decision does not require an express construction of any particular claim terms. 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 15
- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable
“Final Written Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) as to the patentability of the claims on which we instituted trial. Petitioner has the burden of proving unpatentability of a claim by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). As stated above, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s contentions. We have reviewed Petitioner’s contentions and conclude that they show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 8, 13, and 15–18 of the ’349 patent are unpatentable.” slip op. at 3
- Expert testimonyOther
“[T]he compelling merits standard is a higher standard than the standard for institution set by statute.” Commscope at 3 (referring to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)). “[W]hen determining whether there is a compelling unpatentability challenge, the Board evaluates whether the Petition presents challenges in which the evidence, if unrebutted in trial, would plainly lead to a conclusion that one or more claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. (emphasis added). This is the standard I previously applied to Petitioner’s Ground 1 challenge to claim 17. Inst. Dec. (Fitzpatrick, J., concurring at 2). During trial, all of Petitioner’s challenges went unrebutted, including Petitioner’s Ground 1 challenge to claim 17. See PO Resp. 1 (Patent Owner “elects to not proffer additional argument on the papers or through any hearings that may occur in this proceeding.”). Thus, because I previously determined Petitioner’s Ground 1 challenge to claim 17 presented compelling merits and because Patent Owner did not rebut that challenge during trial, I conclude that Petitioner has necessarily met its burden of proving claim 17 unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. slip op. at 46
Patent outcomesUS 11,292,349 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,292,349 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd v. Mojo Mobility Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 2, 2025 · IPR2023-01089 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 10–12, and 26 are unpatentable as obvious over the Fells-based grounds; the Board adopted the unrebutted petition analyses.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a master’s degree in electrical engineering, or a similar discipline, and two or more years of experience with wireless charging systems, including, for example, inductive power transfer systems.” Pet. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 20–21). Petitioner further asserts that “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner has not proposed a level of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. Because nothing in the record persuades us that our preliminary finding in the Institution Decision (Dec. 12) adopting Petitioner’s proposal was incorrect, we maintain our adoption of Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s position on this term. See PO Resp. Our decision does not require an express construction of any particular claim terms. 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 14
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther
“obvious over Fells. Pet. 7–76. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contentions. See PO Resp. Having considered the arguments and evidence before us, we find that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1, 5, 7, 10–12, and 26 would have been obvious over Fells. We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s contentions as our own.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“A patent claim “is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. An obviousness determination requires finding “both ‘that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.’” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367– 68 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted); see KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Further, an assertion of obviousness “cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a finding of a motivation to combine “must be supported by a ‘reasoned explanation’”).” slip op. at 12
Patent outcomesUS 11,292,349 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,292,349 - Biofrontera Inc. / Biofrontera Bioscience GmbH et al. v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 12, 2024 · IPR2024-00874 · APJ Erica A Franklin · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable, failing to show Bansal's claimed light intensity arrangement.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“An obviousness determination requires finding both ‘that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.’” CRFD Research, Inc. v. Matal, 876 F.3d 1330, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367– 68 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Obviousness grounds must be supported with “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning” and not by “mere conclusory statements.” See KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S at 418. slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown for institution that Bansal teaches or suggests arranging light sources “such that a higher intensity of light is emitted proximate the second edges compared to the intensity of light emitted not proximate the second edges,” as required by the challenged claims. Instead, Petitioner demonstrates how Bansal describes varying the density of light source distribution throughout the array to provide a higher density of light in the entire peripheral area of the array, which includes the areas proximal to both the first and second edges, as compared to the central area of the array. See Pet. 36–37; Ex. 1005 ¶ 25. In this regard, Petitioner relies on Bansal’s Figure 9b, asserting that it “shows one embodiment where more light sources are placed near the edges of the panel compared to the light sources in the center.” Pet. 36–37. The comparison of Bansal’s light density between the entire periphery and the central area of the array is insufficient. What is missing from Petitioner’s argument and discussion of Bansal is how Bansal teaches or suggests a configuration that provides a higher density of light proximate to the second shorter edges of the periphery in comparison to the remaining areas of the array, which includes the first longer edges of the periphery. Without that discussion, we find that Petitioner has not shown sufficient for institution that Bansal is persuasively relied upon for the light source arrangement limitation of the challenged claims. likelihood of prevailing in its obviousness challenge of independent claims 1, 5, 16, 20, or 21, or dependent claims 2, 4, 6–8, and 17–19 over Larsen, Bansal, and Jones.” slip op. at 17
- Skill levelOther
“would have had at least a Bachelor of Science in electrical engineering, physics, biomedical engineering, computer engineering, chemical engineering, material science, or a related scientific or engineering field, and at least one year of work or research experience in optics, optoelectronics, radiometry, photometry, photodynamic diagnosis (PD), photodynamic therapy (PDT), phototherapy (PT), or a related field. Pet. 8. Petitioner asserts that, alternatively, a “POSITA in the relevant time frame would have had at least four years of industry or academic experience in optics, optoelectronics, radiometry, photometry, PD, PDT, PT, or a related field.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 37). According to Patent Owner, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application for the ’028 patent was filed, “would have had a M.D. and/or a Ph.D. in an electrical engineering, physics, optical sciences, optical engineering, or a related scientific or engineering field, and at least one to two years of work or research experience in optical engineering, optics, optoelectronics, phototherapy (‘PT’), PDT, or a related field.” Prelim. Resp. 16. Patent Owner asserts that, “[a]lternatively, a POSITA could have a Bachelor’s degree in one of the above areas and at least three to four years of work or research experience in that area.” Id. (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 30–31). We note that the parties’ proposed definitions are largely similar. To the extent that the proposed definitions differ, we do not need to resolve those differences as our findings and conclusion in this Decision would be the same under any of the proposed definitions.” slip op. at 9
§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,697,028 - PTAB · Oct 28, 2024 · IPR2024-00714 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–20 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Valve would prevail on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“To show that a claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102, the challenging party must demonstrate that each and every claim element, arranged as recited in the claim, is found in a single prior art reference. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The limitations may be present in the reference “either explicitly or inherently.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We consider prior art references “together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559, 562 (CCPA 1978)).” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “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.” Prelim. Resp. 13 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 33). Patent Owner also argues that formal education could substitute for practical experience, and vice versa. Id. The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill appear to be substantially similar, supported by testimonial evidence, and consistent with the asserted prior art and the types of problems and solutions in the ’907 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:14–62. Although we discern no difference in the outcome of this decision from choosing one over the other, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill for this decision because it is sufficiently persuasive to meet Petitioner’s “reasonable likelihood” burden at institution. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“At this stage, we disagree with Patent Owner that the term defining in claim 1 requires that the recited position and range information must be user-modifiable. Although claims 8 and 15 (not claim 1) recite a “program comprising instructions for . . . defining position and range information,” nothing in these claims explicitly requires that this program has any interaction with a user. Ex. 1001, 14:24–25, 14:64–65. Also, although the ’907 patent disclosure refers to computer architecture components for rendering a haptic effect within a boundary range, Patent Owner has not pointed to any disclosure in the ’907 patent suggesting that range settings must be user-modifiable. The ’907 patent does refer to “trigger data” that is “based on user input data,” but this trigger data appears to be collected by firmware, suggesting that the user’s involvement in creating trigger data consists of simply pulling or pushing the triggers of the controller. See Ex. 1001, 7:1–6, 8:10–16 (trigger data is “received from [the] controller . . . by peripheral firmware”), 8:58–65 (trigger data is obtained from potentiometers in the controller and sent to peripheral firmware), Fig. 3 (showing “[t]rigger data” 323 as part of peripheral firmware 320). Further, the ’907 patent discloses that the primary and secondary ranges at least “may be fixed or variable.” Ex. 1001, 5:29–30. This suggests that an embodiment in which all the range information is fixed (i.e., unalterable by a user) would be within the scope of the claimed invention. As to Patent Owner’s argument that defining would exclude something that is pre-defined, Patent Owner provides no evidence of this in the ’907 patent, its prosecution history, or extrinsic evidence. We find the proposition that something “pre-defined” is not “defined” illogical, and we” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“To show that a claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102, the challenging party must demonstrate that each and every claim element, arranged as recited in the claim, is found in a single prior art reference. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The limitations may be present in the reference “either explicitly or inherently.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We consider prior art references “together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559, 562 (CCPA 1978)).” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,627,907 - Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology Co., Ltd. v. Clo Virtual Fashion, IncInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 25, 2024 · IPR2024-00970 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Institution
Institution was denied for claims 1–11 because the petition did not sufficiently explain why a skilled artisan would combine TUKATECH’s features with EZBRUSH.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“II. ANALYSIS A. Legal Standards Used in the Merits Analysis “In an IPR, the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)); Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if “the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious . . . to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective evidence of non-obviousness, i.e., secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner’s expert provides no citation for his “smooth seam” or “pleated or ruffled effect at the seam” rationales. Indeed, Petitioner’s expert does not indicate that he has expertise regarding clothing, let alone seam formation on clothing. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 3–13. As our Rules make clear, “[e]xpert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a); see also Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fab. Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Testimony proffered by a witness lacking the relevant technical expertise fails the standard of admissibility under Fed. R. Evid. 702.”). Petitioner’s expert does not cite evidence in support of his statements, nor does he provide evidence that he has a background that indicates that he would intrinsically know such things to be true. On this record, we afford Petitioner’s expert’s testimony on the “length selection” rationales for providing a “smooth seam” and/or “pleated or ruffled effect at the seam” no weight. Ex. 1003 ¶ 61. For this reason, Petitioner’s obviousness position is untenable. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”).” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner’s expert provides no citation for his “smooth seam” or “pleated or ruffled effect at the seam” rationales. Indeed, Petitioner’s expert does not indicate that he has expertise regarding clothing, let alone seam formation on clothing. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 3–13. As our Rules make clear, “[e]xpert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a); see also Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fab. Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Testimony proffered by a witness lacking the relevant technical expertise fails the standard of admissibility under Fed. R. Evid. 702.”). Petitioner’s expert does not cite evidence in support of his statements, nor does he provide evidence that he has a background that indicates that he would intrinsically know such things to be true. On this record, we afford Petitioner’s expert’s testimony on the “length selection” rationales for providing a “smooth seam” and/or “pleated or ruffled effect at the seam” no weight. Ex. 1003 ¶ 61. For this reason, Petitioner’s obviousness position is untenable. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”). Similarly, Petitioner asserts that adding “TUKATECH’s suggested techniques” to EZBRUSH “would be merely the application of known techniques to a known system ready for improvement to yield predictable results.” Pet. 43 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 62). Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have recognized that applying the suggested user interface improvement from TUKATECH to EZBRUSH’s CAD system would have led to predictable and helpful results with a reasonable expectation of success.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 62). Similar to the discussion above, we have reviewed the cited paragraph of Petitioner’s expert’s declaration and find insufficient credible evidence supporting Petitioner’s naked assertions regarding what was an “application of known techniques to a known system ready for improvement to yield predictable results.” Pet. 43; Ex. 1003 ¶ 62. To the extent Petitioner is arguing that obviousness can be established merely by showing that EZBRUSH and TUKATECH are in the same field of endeavor (e.g., Pet. 43 (“both [are] directed toward CAD systems”)), we disagree. We are not aware of any authority supporting such an argument. Petitioner has not sufficiently explained why or how it would have been obvious to apply the length comparison information from the table of TUKATECH’s size reshaping feature to EZBRUSH in a manner that meets each step of the claim. Thus, Petitioner’s additional reasons for modifying EZBRUSH to implement TUKATECH’s sizing table are also untenable.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), we apply the claim construction standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). That is, “the words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning’ . . . that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Id. at 1312–13. We do not need to construe any claim terms to reach a decision in this proceeding. Realtime, 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 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,733,773 - Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology Co., Ltd. v. Clo Virtual Fashion, IncInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 25, 2024 · IPR2024-00967 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show why a skilled artisan would have combined Niterra’s wire-length features with EZBRUSH’s clothing design software.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“II. ANALYSIS A. Legal Standards Used in the Merits Analysis “In an IPR, the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)); Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if “the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious . . . to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective evidence of non-obviousness, i.e., secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).” slip op. at 5
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“The expert provides no citation for his “smooth seam” rationale. Moreover, Petitioner’s expert, who has extensive knowledge in CAD drawing systems (e.g., id. ¶ 3), does not indicate that he has expertise regarding clothing, let alone seam formation on clothing. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 3–13. As our Rules make clear, “[e]xpert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a); see also Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fab. Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Testimony proffered by a witness lacking the relevant technical expertise fails the standard of admissibility under Fed. R. Evid. 702.”). Petitioner’s expert does not cite evidence in support of his statement, nor does he provide evidence that he has a background that indicates that he would intrinsically know such things to be true. On this record, we afford Petitioner’s expert’s testimony on the “smooth seam” rationale no weight. For this reason, Petitioner’s obviousness position is untenable. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”).” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“asserts that it would have been obvious to add these features from Niterra’s circuit board designer into the clothing designer of EZBRUSH. Pet. 45–50. Petitioner asserts that the reason to do so is because “it would have been desirable to select the sewing segments to be equal in length when seeking a clean, smooth seam that prevents bunching or unintended stretching of the material.” Id. at 45 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 64). Petitioner then goes on to explain various benefits from adding these “smooth seam” features. Id. at 46–50. Patent Owner argues that “[Petitioner’s] rationale is completely rooted in hindsight” because nothing in the prior art describes a desire to seek a smooth seam. Prelim. Resp. 69. Turning back to the Petition, we see that Petitioner’s “smooth seam” rationale is underpinned by a citation to its expert declaration. Pet. 45 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 64). The expert, in turn, repeats the language from the Petition, but provides no explanation as to the underlying facts or data on which his opinion is based. He states: A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have known that when using the resulting CAD system (EZBRUSH as modified by Corel and Thoemmes (detailed above)) to digitally “sew” two garment patterns together, selecting the sewing segments to be equal in length would have been desirable when seeking a clean, smooth seam that prevents bunching or unintended stretching of the material. Ex. 1003 ¶ 64.” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelNot reached
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that: A person of ordinary skill in the art as of the Critical Date (“POSITA”) would have had a minimum of a bachelor’s degree in an engineering, computer science, graphic design, or a related field plus 2–3 years of work and/or research experience in the field of computer aided design (CAD) software. [Ex. ]1003, ¶23. Graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education. Id. Pet. 21. Patent Owner proposes a different standard: A [person of ordinary skill in the art] to which the ’355 Patent pertains would have had a minimum of a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, textile engineering, computer engineering, computer science, graphic design, or an equivalent degree, with at least 2–3 years of experience in software design for the creation of digital or virtual clothing. EX2001, ¶56. Prelim. Resp. 33. Notably, Patent Owner argues that the level of ordinary skill in the art includes experience specific to digital or virtual clothing and that Petitioner has omitted this critical aspect. Id. at 32. We need not define explicitly the level of ordinary skill in the art because Petitioner would fail to meet its evidentiary burden regardless of the definition of the level of skill adopted.” slip op. at 6
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,410,355 - PTAB · Oct 25, 2024 · IPR2024-00980 · APJ Lisa A Murray · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving them obvious over Grinspun and Graphicxtras.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Section 314(a) of Title 35 of the United States Code provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the Petition (including its supporting testimonial evidence) as well as the evidence and arguments in the Preliminary Response, we determine that the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims of the ’448 Patent. We thus determine not to institute an inter partes review of any of the challenged claims on any of the grounds alleged in the Petition. A. Real Parties in Interest” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“The parties agree that no claim terms need to be construed for the purposes of a Decision on Institution, but disagree as to whether the preamble of method claim 1 is limiting. Petitioner argues that it is not, while Patent Owner argues that statements of intended purpose in the preamble to a method claim are generally construed as limiting. Pet. 31–32 (citing Arctic Cat Inc. v. GEP Power Prods., 919 F.3d 1320, 1328–1330 (Fed. Cir. 2019)); Prelim. Resp. 19 (quoting Eli Lilly and Co. v. Teva Pharma. Int’l GmbH, 8 F.4th 1331, 1340 (Fed Cir. 2021)). We determine that we do not need to resolve this potential claim construction dispute between the parties. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). For the reasons discussed below, even if we adopt Petitioner’s position that the preamble of claim 1 is not limiting, Petitioner still has not established a reasonable likelihood of success regarding its challenge to claim 1.” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a minimum of a bachelor’s degree in an engineering, computer science, graphic design, or a related field plus 2–3 years of work and/or research experience in the field of computer aided design (CAD) software.” Pet. 12. Petitioner asserts that “[g]raduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. Patent Owner largely agrees with Petitioner’s proposal, but argues that the relevant experience would have had to have been in “creating computer programs for virtual or digital clothing design” because general CAD software is not suitable for the purposes of virtual clothing design. Prelim. Resp. 18–19. We need not determine which definition is more consistent with the ’448 Patent and the asserted prior art. We have applied Petitioner’s definition in our analysis below. We determine that even under Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of success with respect to any of the claims challenged in the Petition, for the reasons discussed below. C. Claim Construction” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“First, Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that either Grinspun or Graphicxtras teach taking measurements “of” a two-dimensional pattern, as described in the preamble of claim 1. See Prelim. Resp. 20–23. Grinspun provides a 2D pattern in its Design Window 110, but does not measure any part of the 2D pattern. Id. at 20; Ex. 1004 at 17, 37–38, Fig. 1; see also Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 76–77 (Govindaraj Decl.). Graphicxtras teaches taking horizontal or vertical measurements between bounding boxes, but does not measure the distance between the actual outlines of the pattern pieces. Ex. 1005 (Graphicxtras); see Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 79–81. Even if the preamble is not considered to be limiting, the fact remains that neither reference discloses measuring a distance within a pattern piece, which is required by the claim language “determining a length of a line segment using the points . . . responsive to determining that the points are located in different pattern pieces[.]” Ex. 1001 at 18:3–4 (emphasis added); see Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 84–85. Second, Petitioner has not shown that either reference, alone or in combination, can determine whether two points are on the same pattern piece or different pattern pieces by affirmatively examining “attributes of areas” in which the points are located. Prelim. Resp. 27–29 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 87–90). The ’448 Specification indicates that a “measuring apparatus may determine that areas to which the two points A and B belong correspond to different pattern pieces based on the data structure corresponding to each of the two points A and B.” Ex. 1001 at 7:25–40. The data structure corresponding to each of the points may store information corresponding to each of the points in the form of a linked list, a tree, or a table, for example. The information corresponding to each of the points may include, for example, identification information of a pattern piece in which each of the points is positioned, identification of a line in a pattern piece in which each of the points is positioned, a coordinate of a point on a line of a pattern piece, and the like. Id. at 6:63–7:4. This is reflected in claim 1, which contains the limitation “determining a length of a line segment using the points based on the determined attributes of the areas, the determined length of the line segment changed to account for separation between the pattern pieces responsive to determining that the points are located in different pattern pieces[.]” Ex. 1001 at 17:66–18:4. The Grinspun-Graphicxtras combination does not do this. Rather, in the proposed combination the two points A and B are always on the edges of two different pattern pieces, and there is no disclosure of a set of data structures that would enable the proposed software to determine the location of the points in relation to the 2D pattern pieces depicted. Prelim. Resp. 27–29 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 90); see Pet. 35 (annotating Figure 1 of Ex. 1004). Third, because the line segment in the proposed combination is always between the edges of two different pattern pieces, the combination does not determine the “length of a line segment using the points based on the determined attributes of the areas” associated with the two points. Prelim. Resp. 41–42 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 91–93); Ex. 1001 at 17:62–65 (emphasis added); see also Pet. 40, 42, 44 (further annotating Figure 1 of Ex. 1004). Fourth, Petitioner misinterprets the claim language “the determined length of the line segment changed to account for separation between the pattern pieces” and does not does not even address the remainder of that claim element, “responsive to determining that the points are located in different pattern pieces.” See Ex. 1001 at 18:1–4 (emphasis added). This language does not mean that the user manually changes the length of the line segment by moving the pattern pieces. See Pet. 40–44. It means that the portion of the line segment that is in the empty space between the pattern pieces is subtracted, as shown in Figure 4 of the ’448 Patent, in order to determine the measurement of a portion of the 3D clothing to be created from the 2D pattern. Prelim. Resp. 40–41 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 94–95). We agree with and adopt the explanation of Patent Owner’s expert declarant, Dr. Govindaraj that: [T]he ’448 teaches repeatedly and the claims require that the patterns are fixed relative to one another, that the selected points are fixed, and that the line segments are fixed. The entire purpose of the claimed invention is to measure the length of a line segment in response to determining that the points are located in different pattern pieces, and then accounting for the “white space” or “separation between” the two patterns. Ex. 2001 ¶ 95. Patent Owner raises additional arguments as to why claim 1 would not” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,222,448 - PTAB · Oct 10, 2024 · IPR2024-00734 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 3, 15, 17, and 19–21, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“to institute an inter partes review. We may institute an inter partes review only if “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). The “reasonable likelihood” standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018- 01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). Based on the current record and for the reasons explained below, Petitioner has shown that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Thus, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1, 3, 15, 17, and 19–21 in the ’518 patent on all challenges included in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention “would have been someone”: (1) “knowledgeable with the computer networking techniques available at the time”; and (2) “who had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or an equivalent, and two years of experience working with computer networks, including network security.” Pet. 7. Petitioner also asserts that “[l]ack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Id. Dr. Crovella’s testimony supports Petitioner’s assertions. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 15–16. Based on the current record and for purposes of this decision, we accept Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan because it comports with the technology and claims of the ’518 patent as well as the asserted references. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 16.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Based on the current record, we determine that no claim term requires an explicit construction to decide whether Petitioner satisfies the “reasonable likelihood” standard for instituting trial. slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Based on the current record, Petitioner establishes sufficiently for purposes of institution that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had reasons, i.e., as articulated by Dr. Crovella, to combine the teachings of Gai, Yip, and Kwan in the way Petitioner proposes. See Pet. 14–21, 27, 29–31, 38; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 51–58, 62–72, 91–92, 98, 101, 121. Based on the current record, Petitioner also establishes sufficiently that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of the references. See Pet. 16–17, 22, 38; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 59–60, 73–74, 121. (f) Preliminary Conclusion About Alleged Obviousness As discussed above, Petitioner’s analysis addresses how the combined disclosures in Gai, Yip, and Kwan teach claim 1’s subject matter. See supra §§ III.D.4(a)–(d). Additionally, Petitioner provides reasons with rational underpinnings as to why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Gai, Yip, and Kwan in the way Petitioner proposes and would have had a reasonable expectation of success. See supra § III.D.4(e). Hence, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of proving that claim 1 is unpatentable under § 103(a) because the claim would have been obvious over Gai, Yip, and Kwan.” slip op. at 34
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,623,518 - PTAB · Oct 8, 2024 · IPR2024-00642 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–4, 6, 7, 10–13, 15–18, and 20 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the pre-institution filings “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the record, we institute inter partes review of the ’473 patent on all challenges set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We begin by interpreting Petitioner’s proposal as to the level of skill in the art, which refers to having a bachelor’s degree and “at least 2 years of experience in product design and development in the field of griddle cooking stations and/or outdoor cooking grills” or no degree and at least 5 years of such experience. See Pet. 15. Because the proposal does not specify the source of the “experience,” we agree with Petitioner that the proposal does not require design and development experience that stems “from working for a company in the griddle or grill industry” and that “the relevant design experience can come from any source, including designing and developing griddles in academia as well as teaching students.” Prelim. Reply 5. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s arguments on these points and, as noted, adopts the wording of Petitioner’s proposal as its own. See Prelim. Sur-reply 3–4; Prelim. Resp. 12. For purposes of this Decision, we also adopt the wording of Petitioner’s proposal as our own, and note that the relevant design experience can come from any source.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“On this record, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “rib” that requires “an elongated raised piece of strong or thick material across a surface or through a structure, serving to support or strengthen the structure.” Prelim. Resp. 13. Several reasons support this conclusion. First, none of the claim language supports Patent Owner’s proposed construction. The claims require a “front rib” and “multiple lateral ribs” that define “heating regions” between the laterally-spaced ribs that “funnel” heat from the gas burners away “from a rear side of the cooking station.” See Ex. 1001, claims 1, 10. None of this language refers to the ribs as “strong” or “thick” such that they serve “to support or strengthen the structure” as required by Patent Owner’s construction. See id. Second, the specification repeatedly describes the ribs as performing the function described in the claims, i.e., a structure for “venting or channeling convection heat” from the burners. Ex. 1001, 7:3–8; see also id. at 7:54–63, 8:46–65, 9:10–29, 10:31–38, 10:51–58. Patent Owner points to portions of the specification that discuss the ribs also providing structural rigidity to prevent warping, but we agree with Petitioner that the cited portions relate to an optional embodiment where the ribs “may also serve as stabilizers.” Ex. 1001, 7:51 (emphasis added). Because we generally do not read in such optional, functional features of a claimed structure to a claim limitation, we find the portions of the specification cited by Patent Owner do not support its proposed construction. See Cadence Pharms. Inc. v. Exela PharmSci Inc., 780 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2015). For similar reasons, we are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Figure 4 supports its construction merely because it discloses ribs that may be viewed as consistent with Patent Owner’s proposed construction. See Prelim. Resp. 13–14; Anchor Wall Sys., Inc. v. Rockwood Retaining Walls, Inc., 340 F.3d 1298, 1306–07 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[T]he mere fact that the patent drawings depict a particular embodiment of the patent does not operate to limit the claims to that specific configuration.”). Based on our review of the claim language and specification, we view the limitations Patent Owner seeks to add via its proposed construction as optional aspects of the claimed ribs. Because we find insufficient support for Patent Owner’s proposed construction in the intrinsic evidence, we find no reason to resort to extrinsic evidence, such as the dictionary definitions proffered by Patent Owner or the background art discussed by Petitioner. See Seabed Geosolutions, 8 F.4th at 1287. Further, even if we agreed with Patent Owner that the claimed ribs must have some thickness and provide some support and strength to the structure, we still would not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction because it would introduce unnecessary ambiguity into the claims. For example, Patent Owner’s construction refers to a “piece of strong or thick material,” which would mean that the rib limitation may cover strong and thin material or thick and weak material, but Patent Owner has not supported a construction that expressly covers such structures due to the inclusion of the term “or” in its construction. See Prelim. Resp. 13 (emphasis added). In addition, the references to “strong” and “thick” in the proposed construction have no reference point, and it remains unclear, based on the claim language and specification, how strong and/or thick a rib must be to provide “support” and “strength” to the structure to prevent warping or otherwise meet the proposed construction. See id. Because Patent Owner’s proposed construction lacks sufficient clarity, we do not adopt it. Based on the foregoing, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s construction at this stage of the proceeding and apply the ordinary meaning to the term “rib” in the challenged claims.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableInstituted
“Based on the current record, we find Petitioner’s arguments as to these “rib” limitations persuasive. Williams discloses longitudinally extending front dam 42 corresponding to the front rib and longitudinally extending sidewalls 44 that correspond to the claimed lateral ribs. See Pet. 19–20. Williams states that “[t]he presence of the perimeter wall (front dam 42, rear dam 46, and sidewalls 44) helps create the upper zone 40 where the portion of the hot combustion gases are at least temporarily trapped.” Ex. 1005, 3:65–4:2. Based on the current record, Petitioner establishes that front dam 42 and sidewalls 44 correspond to the claimed “front rib” and “lateral ribs” limitations, respectively, and that these ribs define regions and channel convection heat and therefore fall within the scope of the claimed ribs. Patent Owner’s arguments do not directly refute Petitioner’s assertions on these points and are unavailing because they rely on Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction.6 For the reasons explained in the claim construction portion of this Decision, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction that requires a certain thickness or strength to meet the rib limitation. We further note that we would reach the same conclusion had we adopted Patent Owner’s construction, as we understand it. Petitioner 6 In a later section of its Preliminary Response addressing the limitation requiring a “front rib . . . integrally formed with the underside surface of the griddle,” Patent Owner argues that “[r]egardless of the construction of ‘rib,’ none of the proposed Grounds of the Petition persuasively demonstrate that such a claim element was disclosed or obvious.” Prelim. Resp. 36. Based on our reading of the Preliminary Response, this argument was meant to state that regardless of the construction of “rib,” the grounds still fail to teach a “front rib . . . integrally formed with the underside surface of the griddle.” See id. (emphasis added). To the extent that Patent Owner sought to argue that the references fail to disclose the claimed “rib” standing alone, even without resort to Patent Owner’s proposed construction, the Preliminary Response fails to explain or develop such an argument.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,660,473 - PTAB · Oct 3, 2024 · IPR2024-00648 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–30 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). The Supreme Court has held that a decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute on less than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018). After considering the information presented by the parties, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least one of claims 1–30 of the ’462 patent is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“Design, Eligibility). At this point in the proceeding, we interpret the “in response to” limitation of claim 1 to mean that pembrolizumab is administered to a patient after the patient has been determined to be microsatellite instability high or DNA mismatch repair deficient, regardless of whether pembrolizumab is also administered to other patients. The record is devoid of evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood treating a patient “in response to” the determination that the patient has a condition to exclude the same treatment of other patients, such as the treatment of control patients not having the condition.” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“5002). Dr. Neugut’s testimony supports Petitioner’s argument that the cited teachings of Brown and Duval, as well as other references, would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the results of the MSI-H Study Record. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 124, 130, 132, 136. Petitioner argues further that Brown and Duval would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the results of the MSI-H Study Record by treating patients with common types of MSI-H cancers, including endometrial, small bowel, and gastric cancers. Pet. 42–43 (citing Ex. 1003, ¶ 136). Petitioner argues further that the state of the art, as demonstrated by Brown and Duval, as well as other references, would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success because physicians were actively treating patients with cancers that were known to be MSI-H with PD-1 inhibitors. Pet. 43 (citing Ex. 1016; Ex. 1017; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 131–132). According to Petitioner, these other references would have “independently urged” those of ordinary skill in the art to treat MSI-H cancer with PD-1 inhibitors or other immunotherapy, such as pembrolizumab, and would have given them a reasonable expectation of success. Pet. 44–45. Petitioner cites, along with other references, Pernot, which states “[colorectal cancers] associated with MSI could lead to a more intense immune response, but also to specific immunoregulatory phenomena, making them good candidates for immunotherapy.” (Ex. 1006,3 3741; see Pet. 43.) Petitioner also cites Champiat, which states that” slip op. at 25
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’462 patent would have been a medical doctor or a professional in a related field with at least five years of experience with treating cancer. Pet. 11 (citing Neugut Decl., Ex. 1003 ¶ 19). Petitioner argues further that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have had experience in or access to a person with knowledge of clinical studies for therapeutics and how they work and to a pathologist with comparable experience. Id. Patent Owner, having not entered a response, does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal about the POSA’s qualifications on this record.. For this Decision, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s proposal above, which is supported by Dr. Neugut’s testimony and does not appear to be inconsistent with the level of skill reflected in the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 8
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,643,462
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.