- Resmed, Inc. v. New York UniversityAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 7, 2023 · IPR2022-00993 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 6, 7, 10–14, 19, 20, 23–30, and 32 are unpatentable under § 103 based on Sullivan995, Sullivan460, and Matthews.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“not implicitly define the phrase “analyzing the breathing patterns,” as proposed, because Patent Owner has failed to show any sufficient evidence that the ’994 patent clearly expresses an intent to redefine the phrase or define the phrase in terms other than its plain and ordinary meaning. In other words, implied lexicography does not apply here. Accordingly, after reviewing Patent Owner’s contentions in light of all the evidence of record, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction; instead, we apply the plain and ordinary meaning of “analyzing the breathing patterns” in our consideration of the issues before us.18” slip op. at 31
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“D. Other Claim Terms The Parties do not dispute the construction of any other claim terms, and we find that no other terms require express construction to resolve the controversy between the Parties. Accordingly, we do not construe any other claim terms expressly. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375 (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803)).” slip op. at 31
- Skill levelOther
“G. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner, supported by Dr. Kirkness’s testimony, proposes that a” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“19, 20, 23–26, 28–30, and 32 and supported on the complete record before us, and, therefore, we adopt them as our own findings. See Pet. 66– 77. Accordingly, for the reasons explained by Petitioner, we find that the combination of Sullivan995, Sullivan460, and Matthews satisfies the elements of claims 6, 7, 10–14, 19, 20, 23–26, 28–30, and 32.” slip op. at 49
Patent outcomesUS 6,988,994 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,988,994 - Resmed, Inc. v. New York UniversityAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 7, 2023 · IPR2022-00992 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–14 are unpatentable as obvious: claims 1–5 and 7–14 over Sullivan995 and Sullivan460, and claim 6 over those references and Matthews.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“A. “troubled wakefulness” Petitioner proposes that we construe “troubled wakefulness” to mean” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“not implicitly define the phrase “analyzes the data to determine the patient’s breathing patterns,” as proposed, because Patent Owner has failed to show any sufficient evidence that the ’024 patent clearly expresses an intent to redefine the phrase or define the phrase in terms other than its plain and ordinary meaning. In other words, implied lexicography does not apply here. Accordingly, after reviewing Patent Owner’s contentions in light of all the evidence of record, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction; instead, we apply the plain and ordinary meaning of “analyzes the data to determine the patient’s breathing patterns” in our consideration of the issues before us.” slip op. at 31
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Accordingly, for the reasons explained above, we find Petitioner has” slip op. at 53
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“because it too is based on Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “analyzes the data to determine the patient’s breathing patterns,” which we do not adopt for the reasons explained above. Patent Owner’s additional arguments in response to Ground 2 are directed to motivation to combine, reasonable expectation of success, and objective indicia of nonobviousness, which we address below. For the reasons discussed above, we find Petitioner’s arguments persuasive as to claim 6 and supported on the complete record before us. Accordingly, we find that the combination of Sullivan995, Sullivan460, and Matthews satisfies the subject matter of claim 6.” slip op. at 70
Patent outcomesUS 10,384,024 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,384,024 - PTAB · Dec 7, 2023 · IPR2023-00944 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 10, 11, 15, 17, 18, 21, and 23 based on a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over Douris and Rodriguez.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“institute an inter partes review if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). After considering the parties’ briefing and the evidence of record, we conclude the information presented shows there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’222 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to the challenged claims on the unpatentability ground asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“We also find Petitioner’s reasons to combine Douris and Rodriguez persuasive for the purposes of institution. We agree that the combination would have provided an effective way of getting the user’s attention and would have been superior to the video or audio feedback disclosed in Douris in some situations, for example, when a quiet environment must be observed or when it is too noisy. See Pet. 23–24 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 73). Dr. Cooperstock testifies that in view of the audio overlay information disclosed by Douris as beneficial in certain situations, “[a]n ordinarily skilled artisan would have appreciated that the same advantage attaches to haptic feedback, as it would have provided a third modality to present information to the user—the sense of touch—without impacting the user’s field of vision.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 73. At this stage, we are persuaded by Dr. Cooperstock’s testimony and we determine that Petitioner provides an adequate reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Douris’s KSR, 550 U.S. at 420 (“[A]ny need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed”). We are also persuaded at this stage that person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that the combination would have been successful. Dr. Cooperstock testifies that the use of control signals to provide haptic feedback in augmented reality systems was well-known before March 2013. Ex. 1002 ¶ 74 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 3, 9–10). He further testifies that “Rodriguez also identifies a number of commercially available, off-the-shelf components and toolkits for implementing haptics in mobile devices,” and that Rodriguez’s descriptions are sufficient for implementing the detailed functionality without undue experimentation. Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 3, 9–10, 71, 98); Pet. 24. Rodriguez discloses multiple Software Development Kits that would have allowed skilled artisans to develop software to control the haptic actuators. Ex. 1004 ¶ 71. On this record, we find Dr. Cooperstock’s testimony consistent with Rodriguez and persuasive to show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found the prior art disclosures adequate to implement Petitioner’s proposed combination.8 Thus, Petitioner sufficiently establishes that the combination of Douris and Rodriguez teaches this limitation.” slip op. at 23
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“The Memo explains that, “[c]onsistent with Sotera Wireless, Inc., the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.” Memo 3 (footnote omitted) (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A)). Such a Sotera stipulation “mitigates concerns of potentially conflicting decisions and duplicative efforts between the district court and the PTAB . . . and allows the PTAB to review grounds that the parallel district court litigation will not resolve.” Id. at 7–8. Petitioner acknowledges that in the related district court case, the court has set a trial date of February 20, 2024. Pet. 4.10 But to address any concerns regarding duplication of efforts between the related district court case and this proceeding, Petitioner provides a stipulation that it “will not pursue in the district court any grounds of invalidity against the challenged claims that were raised or reasonably could have been raised in IPR.” Id.” slip op. at 38
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“[a] two-part framework: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential); see also” slip op. at 40
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,269,222 - Resmed, Inc. v. New York UniversityAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 6, 2023 · IPR2022-00994 · APJ Alyssa A Finamore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 11, and 13 are unpatentable as obvious over Sullivan995, Sullivan460, and Matthews; the Board did not reach the other grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“the specification . . . we do not read limitations from the embodiments in the specification into the claims.” Hill-Rom Servs., 755 F. 3d at 1371 (citing Liebel–Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 904 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). “We depart from the plain and ordinary meaning of claim terms based on the specification in only two instances: lexicography and disavowal.” Id. In order for a patentee to act as its own lexicographer, the “patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term other than its plain and ordinary meaning’” and “must ‘clearly express an intent’ to redefine the terms.” Bradium Tech., 923 F.3d at 1044.” slip op. at 25
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, or a similar technical field, with at least two years of relevant product design experience” and that “[a]dditional experience could substitute for less education, and additional education could likewise substitute for less experience.” Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 89). Petitioner further contends that the “Petition does not turn on this precise definition, and the challenged claim[s] would be unpatentable from the perspective of any reasonable person of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 90). Patent Owner does not object to Petitioner’s definition for the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 11. Petitioner’s definition for the level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the problems addressed in the ’344 patent and the prior art. We, therefore, apply Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art in this Decision.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“At the outset, we agree with Petitioner that “enablement ‘is not a requirement to prove invalidity under § 103.’” Pet. Reply 23 (quoting Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). Moreover, we also agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood a preset level is established from previously-acquired data, such as an average level, as Sullivan995 discloses. Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1005, 17:3–27, Fig. 12; Ex. 2015, 38:2–16). Sullivan995 discloses the computing system may “calculate control values of patterns for each patient based on moving average values or such values or patterns will be pre-programmed into the computing system.” Ex. 1005, 17:14–18. According to Sullivan995, when “signals deviate from predetermined values or patterns the computer system generates a signal which is sent to the feedback speed controller on the blower motor.” Id. at 17:19–22.” slip op. at 48
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“The Board uses a two-step analysis in evaluating nexus between the claimed invention and objective evidence. Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2018-01129, Paper 33 at 32–33 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2020) (precedential), aff’d sub nom. Zaxcom, Inc. v. Lectrosonics, Inc., 2022 WL 499848 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 18, 2022). We first consider whether the patent owner has demonstrated “that its products are coextensive (or nearly coextensive) with the challenged claims,” resulting in a rebuttable presumption of nexus. Id. at 32. If not, that “does not end the inquiry into secondary considerations”; “the patent owner is still afforded an opportunity to prove nexus by showing that the evidence of secondary considerations is the ‘direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention.’” Id. at 33 (quoting Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1373–75). “Where the offered secondary consideration actually results from something other than what is both claimed and novel in the claim, there is no nexus to the merits of the claimed invention.” Id. (citing In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1068–69 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). There is no requirement that the objective evidence of non-obviousness be tied exclusively to claim elements that are not disclosed in the prior art, and the claimed combination as a whole may serve as a nexus for the objective evidence. Id. (citing WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).” slip op. at 56
Patent outcomesUS 9,168,344 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,168,344 - PTAB · Dec 6, 2023 · IPR2023-00942 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 11, 12, and 15 on both asserted obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). 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). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of all the challenged claims on all the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“Petitioner’s arguments on this point are not persuasive because part one of the Advanced Bionics framework is not limited to prior art that was substantively considered by the Office. Advanced Bionics states that “[p]reviously presented art includes . . . art provided to the Office by an applicant, such as on an [IDS].” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 7–8. Here, Poupyrev was included on an IDS. Ex. 1007, 153, 236. Moreover, the timing of the IDS submission has no impact on the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework given that the Examiner initialed a copy of the IDS, indicating that Poupyrev had been considered. Id. at 236. Thus, based on the totality of the evidence presented, we determine that Ground 1 includes only the same prior art that previously was presented to the Office.” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“The Director Memo explains that, “[c]onsistent with Sotera Wireless, Inc., the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.” Director Memo 3 (footnote omitted) (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A)). The Director Memo explains that such a Sotera stipulation “mitigates concerns of potentially conflicting decisions and duplicative efforts between the district court and the PTAB . . . and allows the PTAB to review grounds that the parallel district court litigation will not resolve.” Id. at 7–8.” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“We agree that the Specification provides a definition for this term that corresponds to the construction adopted by the District Court. See Ex. 1001, 5:7–16; Ex. 2004, 2. Inventors can act as their own lexicographers if they clearly set forth a definition of a claim term other than its ordinary and customary meaning. Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 677 (Fed. Cir. 2015). But any such definition must appear in the specification “with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In this case, we are persuaded that the cited passage exhibits a clear intent to define “control gesture” and does so with the requisite clarity, deliberateness, and precision. We thus determine that the Specification provides an express lexicographic definition for the term. See Ex. 1001, 5:7–16. Accordingly, we preliminarily adopt the District Court’s construction of “control gesture” for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,469,806 - PTAB · Dec 6, 2023 · IPR2023-00943 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR of claims 1–4, 6–8, and 11–14 on all petition grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 11 are obvious over Poupyrev and Yun.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“The Director Memo explains that, “[c]onsistent with Sotera Wireless, Inc., the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.” Director Memo 3 (footnote omitted) (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A)). The Director Memo explains that such a Sotera stipulation “mitigates concerns of potentially conflicting decisions and duplicative efforts between the district court and the PTAB . . . and allows the PTAB to review grounds that the parallel district court litigation will not resolve.” Id. at 7–8.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“under 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a), we may institute an inter partes review when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) (2023). Applying that standard, we institute an inter partes review of all the challenged claims of the ’524 patent for the reasons explained below. This is a preliminary decision, and we will base our final written decision on the full trial record.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Meta 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, including implementation of computerbased systems and software for providing haptic feedback effects to a user.” Pet. 4–5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 12–13). At this stage, Immersion does not contest this definition of the level of ordinary skill. See Prelim. Resp. 9. Because it is presently uncontested, supported by testimonial evidence, and appears consistent with the types of problems and solutions in the ’524 patent, we adopt Meta’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill for this decision.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“At this stage, we have not identified any claim terms that clearly depart from their ordinary and customary meanings, and our decision to institute trial does not require us to construe any 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))). Accordingly, we address the claim limitations below in the context of the prior art.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,896,524 - PTAB · Dec 6, 2023 · IPR2023-00945 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR of claims 1–3, 7–10, 14–17, and 20 on all petition grounds; Meta showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness over Nogami.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“The Director Memo explains that, “[c]onsistent with Sotera Wireless, Inc., the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.” Director Memo 3 (footnote omitted) (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A)). The Director Memo explains that such a Sotera stipulation “mitigates concerns of potentially conflicting decisions and duplicative efforts between the district court and the PTAB . . . and allows the PTAB to review grounds that the parallel district court litigation will not resolve.” Id. at 7–8.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“6. Conclusion as to Claim 1 For the above reasons, we determine that Meta has shown sufficiently that Nogami teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and that based on Nogami’s teachings, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to make a system as recited in claim 1. We therefore determine that Meta is reasonably likely to prevail in showing that claim 1 is unpatentable under § 103(a) as obvious over Nogami.” slip op. at 22
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The only substantial difference between the two proposals is that Meta includes experience in “determining the position and/or orientation of a device used by a user (such as a device worn on the human body),” whereas Immersion does not. Compare Pet. 4–5, with Prelim. Resp. 9. At this stage, Immersion and its expert Dr. Abowd do not say if, or why, it disagrees with this part of Meta’s articulation. See Prelim. Resp. 8–9; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 8–12. We preliminarily determine that this part of Meta’s proposal is consistent with the types of technical problems that the ’143 patent assumes the reader would have been able to solve without detailed disclosure. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 5:35–58, 6:48–60. And because the remainder of Meta’s proposal is substantially undisputed, we adopt Meta’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art for this decision. Because this is a preliminary determination, Immersion may provide additional arguments or evidence supporting a different level of ordinary skill at trial.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Based on the preliminary record, we have not identified any claim terms, including “real space,” that clearly depart from their ordinary and customary meanings, and our decision to institute trial does not require us to construe any 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))). Accordingly, we analyze the claim language below in the context of the prior art.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,664,143 - PTAB · Dec 6, 2023 · IPR2023-00947 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR on claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8–11, 13, 14, 16–19, 21, 22, and 24 based on the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“a memo that further clarifies how we should approach analyzing the Fintiv factors. Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/interim_proc_discretion ary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_memo_20220621_.pdf. (“Director Memo”). Notably, the Director stated that “the PTAB [Patent Trial and Appeal Board] will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any ground that could have been reasonably raised before the PTAB.” Director Memo at 3. With this interim guidance in mind, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution of this proceeding based on Fintiv because Meta has provided a Sotera stipulation. Pet. 4; see also Prelim. Resp. 29 (Immersion acknowledging that Meta offered a Sotera stipulation). We do not agree with Immersion’s argument that we can effectively ignore the interim guidance in the Director’s Memo because, prior to her guidance, another Board panel did not find a Sotera stipulation to be sufficient to overcome a trial date scheduled significantly before the projected due date for a final written decision. Prelim. Resp. 29–30 (citing Cisco, IPR2021-00329, Paper 13). As Immersion correctly notes, the Cisco case issued in July 2021, which is roughly one year before the Director Memo issued in June 2022. See id. at 29. The Director Memo clearly states that it is “binding agency guidance,” which, in essence, abrogates any prior inconsistent holdings by Board panels regarding the application of Fintiv, including the non-precedential holding in the Cisco case relied on by Immersion. Director Memo at 3. Put simply, because Meta has provided a Sotera stipulation, the Director Memo is controlling and the Fintiv factors are not a basis for denying institution.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“constructions for the claim term “free space” in the district court case, but Meta nonetheless contends that it “does not believe any term of the ’298 patent requires express construction at this time because . . . the claims are obvious under the constructions proposed by both parties in the pending litigation, or any other reasonable construction.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1007, 2–3 (“Joint Claim Construction Statement” submitted by the parties in the district court case)). In its Preliminary Response, Immersion contends that “all claim terms should be afforded their ordinary and customary meaning, as [would have been] understood by a [person of ordinary skill in the art], in the context of the [’298] patent specification.” Prelim. Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 37, 38 (Declaration of Gregory Abowd, D.Phil.)). Based on the preliminary record, there is no readily discernible controversy between the parties that requires us to construe any claim terms at this time. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we 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))).” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Pet. 4–5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 12, 13). Relying on the testimony of Dr. Abowd, Immersion offers the same assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, except Immersion excludes industry experience applicable to determining the position and/or orientation of a device used by a user, such as a device worn on the human body. Prelim. Resp. 8–9 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 11). The level of skill advanced by each party requires at least a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or an equivalent degree. We do not discern a material difference between the industry experiences advanced by either party, nor does either party premise its arguments exclusively on its own industry experience. To the extent necessary, and for purposes of institution, we adopt Meta’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art because Dr. Cooperstock’s identification of relevant industry experience applicable to determining the position and/or orientation of a device used by a user, such as a device worn on the human body, is consistent with the ’298 patent and the asserted prior art. We note, however, that our obviousness analysis would be the same under either party’s assessment.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“The dispute between the parties appears to center on how Nogami’s system assigns reference intensity levels to each of stimulation generation units 10–12 worn by user 1. Relying on the testimony of Dr. Cooperstock, Meta asserts “[i]t would have been obvious to implement Nogami to provide an identifier for each stimulation generation unit [10, 11, and 12] in order to allow CPU 201 to distinguish and associate it with the region of the body [of user 1] on which it is worn.” Pet. 33 (quoting Ex. 1002 ¶ 89). At this stage of the proceeding, we preliminary credit Dr. Cooperstock’s testimony because it is consistent with Nogami’s disclosure that CPU 201 generates operation setting information (e.g., the reference intensity levels) for controlling the operation of stimulation generation units 10–12, which can vary based on whether these stimulation generation units are located in attention range 50. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 120, 174, Fig. 4, step 406. Dr. Cooperstock further testifies that “[t]he concept of an ‘identifier’ for a peripheral is a basic concept in computer science or engineering” because [i]t was elementary knowledge of ordinary skilled artisans that virtually all objects on a computer capable of being operated on or manipulated by a computer – such as peripheral device, a computer file, and even a location within the computer’s memory – are associated with an identifier that allows the computer to identify the object and distinguish it from other objects in the computer. Ex. 1002 ¶ 90. At this stage of the proceeding, we preliminary credit Dr. Cooperstock’s testimony because Nogami discloses an example of using an identifier in this way. That is, Nogami disclose using barcode 45 that “indicates ID [identification] information (e.g., an ID) unique to the stimulation generation unit 10.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 206, Fig. 11. Although Nogami discloses the example of barcode 45 only in relation to stimulation generation unit 10, it seems reasonable for a person of ordinary skill in the art to infer this teaching of barcode 45 equally applies to stimulation generation units 11 and 12 so that CPU 201 may also use barcode 45 as unique identifiers for these two stimulation generation units to distinguish them from stimulation generation unit 10. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (An obviousness evaluation “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”). Taking into account Nogami’s disclosure with respect to assigning different reference intensity levels depending on the region of the body of user 1 on which stimulation generation units 10–12 are worn, together with Nogami’s teaching or suggestion of using an identifier (e.g., barcode 45) that indicates ID information unique to each of stimulation generation units 10– 12, we are persuaded that the preliminary record supports that it would have” slip op. at 28
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,248,298 - Resmed, Inc. v. New York UniversityAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 4, 2023 · IPR2022-00989 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 5–11, 13, and 15–30 are unpatentable as obvious over Sullivan995 and Sullivan460; anticipation was not shown, and the other obviousness ground was not reached.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, or a similar technical field, with at least two years of relevant product design experience” and “[a]dditional experience could substitute for less education, and additional education could likewise substitute for less experience.” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 77). Petitioner further states that the “Petition does not turn on this precise definition, and the challenged claims would be unpatentable from the perspective of any reasonable person of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 78). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 15–16. We find that the ’539 patent and the cited prior art references reflect the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention and that the level of appropriate skill reflected in these references and in the ’539 patent is consistent with the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“awake state” Claim 24 recites, in part, “to determine whether breathing patterns indicate an asleep state or an awake state.” Ex. 1001, 11:36–12:7; see also id. at 9:49–64 (claim 1 reciting “between an awake state and an asleep state”), 10:42–56 (claim 11 reciting “at least one of an awake state or an asleep state”). In regard to its allegations of obviousness, Petitioner’s arguments suggest an “awake state” ordinarily means when a patient is not asleep. Pet. 36–37, 42. By contrast, with regard to its allegations of anticipation, Petitioner argues that under Patent Owner’s “implied construction of ‘an awake state’ based on [Patent Owner’s] infringement allegations” in district court, “the patient is in an awake state when there is an absence of obstructions or other breathing patterns indicative of sleep.” Id. at 68–70 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 2, 158, 159). Petitioner provides no further support for this “implied construction” purportedly taken from Patent Owner’s district court allegations. Id. Dr. Kirkness, in support of Petitioner, applied the plain meaning of all terms and phrases. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 80. In regard to supporting Petitioner’s allegations of anticipation, Dr. Kirkness merely assumed Patent Owner’s purported district court claim construction “position to be true.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 253. In this proceeding Patent Owner does not propose an express meaning for “awake state.” See PO Resp. 29–33. More generally, Patent Owner states that the ’539 patent “teaches how to distinguish between an awake state and an asleep state.” Id. at 8. From the arguments of the Parties, we discern no dispute in this proceeding that a plain and ordinary meaning of an “awake state” is a state in which a patient is not asleep. See Ex. 1001, 3:1–5 (distinguishing between “a wake state” and “a sleep state”), 7:22–24 (describing an embodiment with a processing arrangement that “may determine whether the patient is in a sleep state or a wake state based on the breathing pattern”).8 We apply the plain and ordinary meaning of “awake state” in this proceeding and further determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that an awake state means “an absence of obstructions or other breathing patterns indicative of sleep.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Next, we turn to the Specification. “While we read claims in view of the specification . . . we do not read limitations from the embodiments in the specification into the claims.” Hill-Rom Servs., 755 F. 3d at 1371 (citation omitted). “We depart from the plain and ordinary meaning of claim terms based on the specification in only two instances: lexicography and disavowal.” Id. In order for a patentee to act as its own lexicographer, the “patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term other than its plain and ordinary meaning’” and “must ‘clearly express an intent’ to redefine the terms.” Bradium Tech., 923 F. 3d at 1044. In this case, Patent Owner does not argue that it disavowed the full scope of the plain and ordinary meaning of claim 24, nor does Patent Owner argue that it explicitly defined “analyzing the breathing patterns” in the Specification. See, e.g., PO Resp. 29–32. We determine that there is no disavowal nor any explicit lexicographic definition of “analyzing the breathing patterns” in the Specification. Patent Owner instead relies on an “implied lexicography” theory as to why we should construe the phrase as Patent Owner proposes. PO Sur-reply 2, 6–7 (citing, inter alia, AstraZeneca AB v. Mut. Pharm. Co., Inc., 384 F.3d 1333, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). We disagree.” slip op. at 27
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“We disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments—that Petitioner fails to show any motivation to combine and that Sullivan460 is not enabled— merely because Dr. Kirkness indicated in a deposition that he did not know how a preset level is calculated from a sentence in Sullivan460. As Petitioner explains, enablement “is not a requirement to prove invalidity under §103.” Amgen, 314 F.3d at 1357 (under §103, “a reference need not be enabled; it qualifies as a prior art, regardless, for whatever is disclosed therein”). Moreover, we agree with Petitioner that the Challenged Claims do not require any preset level for a flow rate, and a person of ordinary skill “would have understood that a preset level is established from previously-acquired data or data from a previous window of time, such as an average level, for example, as taught in Sullivan995.” Pet. Reply 15 (citing Ex. 2014, 38:2–16; Ex. 1005, 17:3–27, Fig. 12). Patent Owner responds that Petitioner’s assertion is unsupported, and that “Petitioner is obligated to address this challenge, and failed to do so.” PO Sur-reply 18–19 (citing In re Morsa, 713 F.3d 104, 110 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). We find Petitioner’s arguments persuasive because they are supported by the asserted references. Sullivan995 discloses that the computing system may “calculate control values of patterns for each patient based on moving average values or such values or patterns will be pre-programmed into the computing system.” Ex. 1005, 17:14–18. According to Sullivan995, when “signals deviate from predetermined values or patterns the computer system generates a signal which is sent to the feedback speed controller on the blower motor.” Id. at 17:19–22. Based on this disclosure, and given that Sullivan460 incorporates Sullivan995 by reference, we agree with Petitioner that Sullivan460’s disclosure of detecting that the flow rate has fallen below a preset level would have informed a person of ordinary skill that this level was predetermined, so that “the controller 100 activates the nCPAP apparatus 90 to supply air to the patient 30 at a pressure which ameliorates or eliminates the upper airway flow limitation.”16 Ex. 1006, 10:17–21.” slip op. at 50
Patent outcomesUS 9,427,539 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,427,539 - Resmed, Inc. v. New York UniversityAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 4, 2023 · IPR2022-00988 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1–30 unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence, based on the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“ORDER21 Upon consideration of the record before us, it is: ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude (Paper 45) is denied; FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude (Paper 46) is denied;” slip op. at 82
- Skill levelOther
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“1. “troubled wakefulness” Dependent claims 12 and 22 each recite, “wherein the awake state is a” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“not implicitly define the phrase “analyzes the data to determine the patient’s breathing patterns,” as proposed, because Patent Owner has failed to show any sufficient evidence that the ’009 patent clearly expresses an intent to redefine the phrase or define the phrase in terms other than its plain and ordinary meaning. In other words, implied lexicography does not apply here. Accordingly, after reviewing Patent Owner’s contentions in light of all the evidence of record, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction; instead, we apply the plain and ordinary meaning of “analyzes the data to determine the patient’s breathing patterns” in our consideration of the issues before us.” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS 9,108,009 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,108,009
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.