- PTAB · Aug 20, 2024 · IPR2024-00442 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–18 and all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim would have been obvious under § 103.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in a petition and the preliminary 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.” Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, and accompanying exhibits and evidence, we determine Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim in the inter partes review. Therefore, we grant institution of an inter partes review as to all of the challenged claims of the ’826 patent on all challenges in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends as follows: A person of ordinary skill in the art (a “POSITA”) at the time of the alleged invention would have had a degree in electrical engineering or a similar discipline, and three-to-four years of experience working with television signal processing and communication systems. Additional education may substitute for professional experience and significant work experience may substitute for formal education. Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 44–46). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art, which is consistent with the prior art references asserted by Petitioner. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Accordingly, we agree with and will use Petitioner’s proposed level for this Decision.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“As there is no controversy between the parties regarding any claim language that we would need to resolve in order to render our decision in this case, we apply the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim terms without specific construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for petitioner
“The word “means” does not appear in the claims of the ’826 patent. When this is the case, there is a presumption that the claims do not recite means-plus-function limitations under § 112 ¶ 6. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc in relevant part). Since neither party offers any argument or evidence to contravene this presumption, we do not construe any claim term as means-plus-function in rendering our decision.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 9,825,826 - Global Shade Corporation v. With-U E-Commerce (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 7, 2024 · IPR2023-00580 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4, 13, and 14 are unpatentable under § 103; proposed substitute claims 15–19 are unpatentable over Rousselle, Tsai, Ohnishi, Hoober, and Seo, so the revised motion to amend is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Although not identical, the parties’ definitions are substantially similar. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we determine that no reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We note, however, that our obviousness analysis in this Decision would not differ if we adopted either Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner asserts construction is unnecessary and does not propose any term for construction. Pet. 7 (citing Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). Patent Owner does not propose any specific claim construction for any term of the challenged claims. PO Resp. 14. On the full record, we do not discern a need to construe explicitly any claim language because doing so would have no effect on our analyses below of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe 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 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“points to any teaching, suggestion, or motivation in either reference” to replace Tsai’s leg locks with Rousselle’s central lock. PO Resp. 44 (citing Pet. 36; Ex. 1002 ¶ 103). Petitioner disagrees, arguing that the Petition cites “voluminous disclosure” from Rousselle identifying the benefits of a central lock. Reply 18 (citing Pet. 35). We agree with Petitioner. The Petition provides several rationales, supported by Dr. Stein’s testimony, for making the alternative modification. Pet. 35–37. For instance, Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Rousselle discloses the benefits of a central lock over Tsai’s individual leg locking system, such as making the canopy easier and more convenient for a single user to operate. Id. at 35–36 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 102–103; Ex. 1003, 3:38–47; Ex. 1005, 4:29–5:5, 8:5–33, Figs. 1, 2, 18, 19). Petitioner also argues that the proposed modification is the simple addition of one known element to another known element to obtain predictable results and uses a known technique to improve a similar device and yield predictable results. Id. at 36–37 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 105–107; KSR, 550 U.S. at 417). We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence and find the reasons to combine persuasive. In sum, we determine that Petitioner’s proposed reasons to combine Rousselle and Tsai in accordance with the alternative modification are realistic, have rational underpinning, and are supported by expert testimony, which we find persuasive and credit. Thus, Petitioner’s evidence shows that a skilled artisan would have had reasons to combine the teachings of in doing so. slip op. at 32
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner that Tsai’s disclosure of pulling the poles or legs apart to unfold the frame does not disparage central activation to the extent of discouraging one of ordinary skill in the art from investigating or considering Rousselle’s central lock in connection with Tsai’s shelter frame. See DePuy Spine, 567 F.3d at 1327 (holding a reference does not teach away “if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not ‘criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage’ investigation into the manually pulling the four poles 1 outwardly.” Ex. 1005, 10:28–29 (emphasis added). As such, Tsai “merely expresses a general preference” for this technique (see DePuy Spine, 567 F.3d at 1327) and does not specifically require it. We agree with Petitioner that Tsai’s general preference for this technique does not teach away from any other method for unfolding the frame. Furthermore, Tsai’s statement that the shelter frame of Figures 16 and 17 is “somewhat difficult to unfold in that an extra person is sometimes needed to push the center strut C upwardly to its completely extended position” (Ex. 1005, 2:19–22) does not disparage all other center lock configurations, in particular the configuration taught by Rousselle. As Petitioner points out, Rousselle discloses that its collapsible shelter/tent with the central lock arrangement can be erected by a single person. Ex. 1003, 13:59–65. So, instead of requiring “an extra person,” the shelter frame of the combination of Tsai and Rousselle could be erected by a single person. Similarly, Tsai’s statement that the shelter frame of Figures 16 and 17 reduces headroom in the tent (Ex. 1005, 2:17–19) does not disparage all other center lock configurations. We agree with Petitioner that the inner units of both Rousselle and Tsai’s Figure 1 embodiment are different than the inner units shown in Figures 16 and 17, which are large scissors-type linkages located well below the canopy’s roof supported by center strut C. See Reply 11. In contrast, Rousselle discloses shelter/tent 10 in which collapsible frame 100 supports sheet-material cover 200. Ex. 1003, 6:30–32; Fig. 1(A). Unlike the shelter frame of Tsai’s Figures 16 and 17, Rousselle’s frame does not include an upwardly extending center strut propping up the sheet-material cover. Instead, sheet-material cover 200 rests directly on frame in which canopy supporting rods 3 (i.e., the “inner units”) form a canopy support for supporting the canopy material. Ex. 1005, 4:11–25, 7:15–20. Accordingly, neither Rousselle’s or Tsai’s frames present the headroom issue that Tsai identifies with respect to the prior art shelter frame of Figures 16 and 17.” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 10,669,738 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 10,669,738 - PTAB · Jul 26, 2024 · IPR2024-00393 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1 and 3 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that the Amit, Jacobsen, and Isaksson combination renders them obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“unless the information presented in a petition and the preliminary 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.” Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, and accompanying exhibits and evidence, we determine Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim in the inter partes review. Therefore, we grant institution of an inter partes review as to all of the challenged claims of the ’518 patent on all challenges in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends as follows: A POSITA [(person of ordinary skill in the art)] would have a degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field and experience working in signal processing and/or communication systems/networks, e.g., a bachelor’s and three or more years of experience; a master’s and at least one year of experience; or a doctorate and some work experience. Additional education could substitute for professional experience, or vice versa..” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningOther
“Only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Petitioner contends that the challenged claims are “obvious under any reasonable interpretation,” so “no express constructions are required.” Pet. 3. Patent Owner does not offer construction of any claim term, so there is no dispute over claim construction that we need to resolve. We apply the ordinary and customary meanings consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“and Jacobsen. Prelim. Rep. 36–41. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that Amit already identified and solved the reflection problem so there would be no need to make an additional modification to Amit. Id. at 36–37 (citing Ex. 1014, 19:65–20:43). This argument does not negate, however, Petitioner’s contention that a POSITA would have recognized that Jacobsen’s multicarrier modulation would improve upon Amit’s single-carrier modulation by mitigating distortion on the cable network, adapting to channel degradation, and providing increased computational efficiency. Pet. 49–50 (citing Ex. 1016, 312; Ex. 1004 ¶ 173); see KSR, 550 U.S. at 422 (motivation to combine established when POSITA would have appreciated the benefits achieved by the combination).” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 7,295,518 - PTAB · Jul 26, 2024 · IPR2024-00373 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–17 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under § 103.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in a petition and the preliminary 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.” Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, and accompanying exhibits and evidence, we determine Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim in the inter partes review. Therefore, we grant institution of an inter partes review as to all of the challenged claims of the ’249 patent on all challenges in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Decided for petitioner
“deny institution under § 314(a) based on the factors set forth in General Plastic Industrial Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 at 15–19 (§ II.B.4.i) (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) (precedential) (“General Plastic”). Pet. 88–89; Prelim. Resp. 59–60. General Plastic addresses “[m]ultiple, staggered petitions challenging the same patent and same claims rais[ing] the potential for abuse.” General Plastic, Paper 19 at 17 (emphasis added). The parties point to no authority to support that General Plastic has ever been applied in the context of a reexamination filed before a petition similar to the facts of this case. We decline to consider further discretionary denial under General Plastic under the facts presented here.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“In evaluating discretionary denial under § 325(d), the Board follows 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 the 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) (“Advanced Bionics”). The Advanced Bionics framework is further informed by the factors set forth in Becton, Dickinson” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends as follows: A POSITA would have had a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, and 2–3 years of experience in design or development of signal processing and communication systems or networks. . . . Additional education could substitute for professional experience, or vice-versa. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 17–18). At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art, which is consistent with the prior art references asserted by Petitioner. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Accordingly, we agree with and will use Petitioner’s proposed level for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSRPatents in suitUS 7,594,249 - PTAB · Jul 26, 2024 · IPR2024-00459 · APJ Tina E Hulse · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20 over all six asserted obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success and declining discretionary denial under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . 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). Upon considering the arguments and evidence presented in the papers, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one claim challenged in the Petition and we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) and 325(d). Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims of the ’781 Patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Owner, a POSA would have had “a doctoral degree in medicine, chemistry, biochemistry, biology, or a related field and 1–2 years of experience in the processing and analysis of biological samples, including fecal samples.” Id. at 47 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 43). Patent Owner also indicates that such a person could have been an individual or a member of a team of scientists addressing fecal sample processing and analysis. Id. Patent Owner notes that Petitioner’s proposal in the Petition is significantly different from the proposal in its ex parte reexamination request, which merely required a bachelor’s degree and several years of experience processing biological samples. Id. at 46; Ex. 1021, 7.8 Patent Owner also contends that the level of skill set forth in the Petition requires an extraordinary level of skill within an overly narrow focus. Prelim. Resp. 47. Regardless, Patent Owner states that its expert, Dr. Backman, is a person of at least ordinary skill and the claims of the ’781 Patent would not have been obvious under any of the parties’ proposed definitions of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“At this stage of the proceeding, we agree with the parties that no construction of any claim term is necessary for purposes of our Decision. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘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))). C.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“shown sufficiently that a POSA would have had a reason to modify the assay of Lenhard to combine Vilkin’s iFOBT and Itzkowitz’s collection process and DNA stabilization buffer with a reasonable expectation of success. Lenhard expressly states that “[t]he combination of [HIC1 methylation analysis with gFOBT] resulted in increased detection rates for CRCs” and includes data that supports this statement. See Ex. 1004, 147, 146 (Table 4); see also id. at 143 (“The combination of HIC1 methylation analysis with FOBT allowed for the detection of two thirds of CRCs.”). We find these positive statements and supporting data in Lenhard are sufficient to provide a “rational underpinning” to combine the gFOBT and DNA test at this stage of the proceeding. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Moreover, we are persuaded on this record that Vilkin’s explanation of the benefits of iFOBT over gFOBT provide a reason to replace Lenhard’s gFOBT with Vilkin’s iFOBT assay. See Ex. 1005, 2519. And we agree at improve Lenhard’s assay by requiring a patient to directly defecate into a sealable container and add a stabilization buffer to the sample so it could be shipped to a laboratory without freezing, as described in Itzkowitz. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 148–158.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 11,634,781 - PTAB · Jul 25, 2024 · IPR2024-00478 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–19 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on anticipation by Rosenberg-I.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“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 the challenged claims on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“In view of the above, we determine that this factor strongly weighs against the exercise of discretionary denial. 2. Factor 2: proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We do not discern a need to construe explicitly any claim language at this juncture because doing so would have no effect on our analyses below of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 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 8
- Skill levelOther
“would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field, plus at least two years of industry or graduate level experience with software engineering, haptics programming, and/or human-computer interaction, including experience with user-interfaces and applications involving touchscreens, touchpads, and related technologies.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37–43). Patent Owner contends that a person having 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,” and adds that a person having ordinary skill in the art “could have qualified . . . with more formal education and less practical or industry experience, or vice versa.” Prelim. Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 32). Although not identical, the parties’ definitions are substantially similar. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we determine that no express finding is necessary, and that the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We note, however, that our obviousness analysis in this Decision would not differ if we adopted either Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s definition. slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,430,042 - PTAB · Jul 24, 2024 · IPR2024-00477 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR of claims 1–7 on all asserted grounds because the Petition showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“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 the challenged claims on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“does not provide any authority supporting its position that failure to provide a Sotera stipulation “neutralizes” or “undercuts” the impact of a stay. We also disagree with Patent Owner’s suggestion that a district court stay can make discretionary denial inappropriate only when coupled with a Sotera stipulation. See Prelim. Resp. 59. Again, Patent Owner does not provide any authority supporting this position. Id. Contrary to Patent Owner’s positions, Fintiv indicates a district court stay “has strongly weighed against exercise of the authority to deny institution” independent of whether a Sotera stipulation—or any other type of stipulation—has been submitted. Fintiv at 6.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Other
“time it was made, 35 U.S.C. § 103 requires us to resolve the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of the invention. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Factors that may be considered in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include, but are not limited to, the types of problems encountered in the art, the sophistication of the technology, and educational level of active workers in the field. Id. In a given case, one or more factors may predominate. Id.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We do not discern a need to construe explicitly any other claim language at this juncture because doing so would have no effect on our analyses below of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties. 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 11
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,336,260 - Hunter’S Manufacturing Company, Inc. D/B/A Tenpoint Crossbow Technologies v. Ravin Crossbows, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 9, 2024 · IPR2023-00407 · APJ Robert J Silverman · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 1 is unpatentable as anticipated by Stanziale ’771; the Board did not reach the alternative grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“As an initial matter, the recited expression “mounted to” is broad. The Federal Circuit has explained that words in a claim “will ordinarily be given their full meaning,” without imposing narrowing modifications on the claim language. Johnson Worldwide, 175 F.3d at 989, see also Virginia Panel, 133 F.3d at 865–66. As to whether the “mounted to” connection may be an indirect connection, the parties agree that an indirect connection is permitted — a view that is amply supported by the intrinsic record, as discussed above. With regard to the types of movement that may occur between a “string guide” and a corresponding “limb,” the intrinsic record shows that that various types of movements (including no movement at all) are characterized as “mounted to.” Slight variations of “mounted to,” occurring in the intrinsic record, are helpful in understanding the claim language — particularly because the ’015 patent itself uses such a variant (“mounted . . . on”) to describe the very connection (between a “string guide” and a “limb”) that is elsewhere, and in claim 1, is described as “mounted to.” See Ex. 1001, 5:23–26.” slip op. at 22
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Patent Owner’ sole argument — i.e., that Stanziale ’771 fails to teach the “mounted to” limitation — is based upon its construction of the “mounted to” limitation, which permits the “string guide” to be rotatable relative the corresponding “limb,” but permits no other type of relative motion. See PO Resp. 4, 13–14. As discussed above, we do not accept Patent Owner’s construction of the “mounted to” limitation. In Stanziale ’771, first and second pulleys 145, 146, and interconnecting pivot 147 (all three of which Petitioner maps to claim 1’s “string guide[s]”) are pivotally connected to a number of intermediate members (e.g., lever arms or pushing arms 32, connecting elements 27, and constraining member 29) which are, in turn, pivotally connected to elastic members 10 (which Petitioner maps to claim 1’s “limb[s]”). See Pet. 41–42 (citing Ex. 1012 7:9–17, 8:26–8:13, 11:8–9, 14:18–15:22, 16:24–25, 16:29, 17:2, 17:15–17, 17:24–27, 19:12–30, 20:32–21:16, Figs. 1–7; Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 177–179); see also Ex. 1012 11:3–7, 11:34–12:4, 12:10–17, 16:29–18:3, 18:22–19:30, Figs. 8, 9, 10a, 10b. Therefore, Stanziale ’771, in Petitioner’s mapping, teaches the “string guide[s]” connected indirectly to the “limb[s].” Per the construction of the “mounted to” limitation employed herein (“connected to, either directly or indirectly”), Petitioner establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Stanziale ’771 teaches the “string guide[s]” “mounted to” the “limb[s],” as recited in claim 1 of the ’015 patent. Contrary to Patent Owner’s concerns (see Paper 47, 1), the indirect connection between Stanziale ’771’s “string guide[s]” and “limb[s]” is not “unbounded.” Rather, the connection disclosed by Stanziale ’771 is the type of indirect connection supported by the intrinsic record. See supra § II.B. Patent Owner’s contention that “a POSA would be disinclined to rely on [Stanziale ’771] as a reference for the improved crossbow design disclosed in Claim 1” is not persuasive. See PO Resp. 38 (citing Ex. 2029 ¶ 46). The test for anticipation is whether a prior art reference discloses each and every element recited in the claim, not whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have been inclined to rely on the reference. See Net MoneyIN, Inc., 545 F.3d at 1369.” slip op. at 32
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed
“Motions to exclude evidence are authorized under 35 C.F.R. § 42.64. Rule 42.64(b)(1) states: “Once a trial has been instituted, any objection [to evidence] must be filed within five business days of service of evidence to which the objection is directed.” Further, “[t]he objection must identify the grounds for the objection with sufficient particularity to allow correction in the form of supplemental evidence.” 35 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1). “A motion to exclude evidence must be filed to preserve any objection.” 35 C.F.R. § 42.64(c).” slip op. at 40
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“In the present proceeding, Petitioner proposed — and Patent Owner does not dispute (see PO Resp. 3) — the following definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art: A hypothetical POSA to which the ’015 Patent pertains would be a technical person who has at least some experience working in the field of archery, reviewing crossbows or engineering related to bows and/or crossbows, and is generally familiar with prior art crossbows. (Ex. 1016 ¶17.) Such a person would likely have at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or, alternatively, would have several years of experience in the field of archery or engineering related to bows and/or crossbows. (Id.) Pet. 28. As discussed above, we adopt Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill for the purposes of this Decision. See supra § II.A. Petitioner alleges various deficiencies in Mr. Teater’s background, education, and knowledge. Paper 39, 4–8. Nevertheless, Mr. Teater satisfies the definition, of a person of ordinary skill in the art, that Petitioner advanced. Specifically, Mr. Teater has reviewed crossbows for 14 years, encompassing the relevant priority date for the ’015 patent, during which time he wrote evaluations of various bows and crossbows, developed and published testing standards for crossbows, and served on the Archery Trade Association’s technical committee for standards and guidelines. Paper 41, 4 (citing Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 3, 4, 7). Accordingly, Mr. Teater satisfies Petitioner’s definition of “a technical person who has at least some experience working in the field of archery, reviewing crossbows or engineering related to bows and/or crossbows, and is generally familiar with prior art crossbows.” Pet. 28. Petitioner emphasizes that Mr. Teater “does not have a degree in mechanical engineering.” Paper 39, 4 (citing Ex. 2034, 1; Ex. 1034, 43:20–44:5). However, no degree of any kind is mandatory for satisfying Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Indeed, Petitioner’s definition states that “[s]uch a person would likely have at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or, alternatively, would have several years of experience in the field of archery or engineering related to bows and/or crossbows.” Pet. 28 (emphasis added). There is no dispute that Mr. Teater meets this standard. Petitioner raises various other issues that form no part of the definition that Petitioner advanced — for example, whether Mr. Teater has taught courses related to crossbows, whether he is named as an inventor on a” slip op. at 36
Patent outcomesUS 9,354,015 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipationcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,354,015 - Apple Inc. v. Masimo CorporationInstitutedPTAB · Jul 9, 2024 · IPR2024-00244 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–5, 7–14, and 16–25 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the Sarantos-based obviousness challenges.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“based on the Delaware Litigation. Prelim. Resp. 17–34; see Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 11–12 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (holding that PTAB has discretion to deny institution in certain circumstances where there is a parallel district court proceeding). Our analysis under Fintiv is guided by the USPTO Director’s Memorandum issued on June 21, 2022, titled “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation” (“Director’s Memo”).8 Pursuant to the Director’s Memo, we “will not discretionarily deny institution . . . where a petitioner presents a [Sotera] stipulation.” Director’s Memo 3 (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A)). Because Petitioner has offered a stipulation like that in Sotera, i.e., a stipulation to “not pursue for the instituted claims, in [the Delaware 7 US 8,446,275 B2, issued May 21, 2013 (Ex. 1006, “Utter”). 8 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ interim_proc_discretionary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_m emo_20220621_.pdf. Litigation], the same grounds as in the IPR2024-00244 petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in that Petition” (Ex. 1078, 1), we do not discretionarily deny institution under Fintiv. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s stipulation “does not carry the benefits underlying the Director’s Guidance” because it was filed “only after the parties and the court conducted extensive and costly fact and expert discovery, and fully briefed and argued dispositive motions.” Prelim. Sur-reply, 2. This argument is not persuasive because the Director’s Guidance does not afford discretion to discount a Sotera stipulation based on how far a parallel district court litigation has progressed when the stipulation was made. Director’s Memo, 7 (explaining, without qualification, that “the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution of an IPR or PGR in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition”); see also NXP USA, Inc. v. Impinj, Inc., IPR2021-01556, Paper 13 (Vidal Sept. 7, 2022) (precedential) (explaining that the only appropriate time for a petitioner to offer a stipulation related to Fintiv factor 4 is prior to the Board’s decision on institution). Accordingly, we decline to deny institution based on the Delaware” slip op. at 10
- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“First, we agree with Petitioner that the two petitions are not redundant and contain material differences that, in this case, support Petitioner’s argument that two petitions challenging the ’159 patent are warranted. The -243 IPR presents three grounds, all built on a combination of Iwamiya and Sarantos. -243 IPR, Paper 2, 1. In that case, Petitioner relies on Iwamiya as the primary reference that discloses a number of limitations, including the light shaping aspect of claim 1. See id. at 13–27. In this case, Petitioner relies on Sarantos alone for all of the limitations in claim 1, including the light shaping limitation, or a combination of Sarantos and Shie, with Shie allegedly disclosing the light shaping limitation. See Pet. 1, 7–14, 35–38. Petitioner also seeks to add the dark colored coating of Sarantos to Iwamiya in the -243 IPR, but relies on Sarantos alone for that limitation in this case. See Notice 2. In addition, because the combinations are different, they are supported by different motivations to combine and different underlying expert testimony. See, e.g., Pet. 30–35, 44–46; -243 IPR, Paper 2, 7–13. The material differences between the challenges presented in the two cases are readily apparent, and are underscored by Patent Owner’s arguments in its Preliminary Responses. For example, in the -243 IPR, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s assertion that Iwamiya discloses the light shaping functionality (upon which Petitioner relies on Sarantos, here), but argues (for claim 1) that the combination fails to disclose the “opening” and “pass through the surface” limitations, and argues against the motivation to combine Iwamiya and Sarantos. See -243 IPR, Paper 6, 34– 48. Patent Owner raises none of those arguments in this case, and instead focuses on the alleged failure of Petitioner to establish that Sarantos alone, or Sarantos and Shie, disclose the claimed light shaping functionality, and that Petitioner fails to establish an adequate reason to combine Sarantos and Shie. See Prelim. Resp. 34–50. The arguments made by Patent Owner highlight the differences in the challenges in a manner that suggests the outcome of each case will turn on independent issues related to the application of the different prior art to different claim limitations, as presented in each case. We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that the two petitions “are redundant” merely because Petitioner relies on Sarantos for some of the same limitations in both cases—here, despite some overlap in assertions regarding Sarantos, we determine that these petitions are not redundant of another, for the reasons discussed above. See Notice Response 2. Under these circumstances, we find the second petition at issue here to be non-redundant and materially different than that in the -243 IPR, which weighs in favor of considering the second petition here. Second, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s contention that it could not fit its arguments into a single petition due to word count restraints, and that the number and nature of claims challenged (25 claims in the -243 IPR and 23 claims here) supports the need for two petitions. See Notice 5; Pet. 88 (certifying word count of 13,991 words, just under 14,000 word limit); -243, Paper 2, 91 (certifying word count of 13,970 words). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contention, but argues instead that Petitioner need not have challenged so many claims in its IPRs, when only five claims were asserted against it in the Delaware Litigation. Notice Response 5. We do not agree with that argument because petitioners are not required to challenge only those claims that are currently asserted against it in co-pending litigation. Third, we disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that consideration of the 23 challenged claims here is unnecessary given that Petitioner challenged all 25 claims of the ’159 patent in the -243 IPR. Id. at 5. That argument puts form over substance. Petitioner could have split up its two petitions differently such that a first petition could have addressed one subset of claims, e.g., claims 1–13, and the second petition could have addressed a different subset of claims, e.g., claims 14–25, with all prior art challenges directed to each set of claims appearing in both petitions. The end result would be the same as presented here, i.e., the number of claims challenged and the challenges raised against them would remain the same, even though it would more closely align with Patent Owner’s logic that a second petition must challenge claims not challenged in a first petition. We do not view the manner in which Petitioner divided its argument across these two petitions as a sound basis to deny institution of the second petition here. Fourth, we agree with Petitioner that the additional burden to the Board and Patent Owner, necessary to address the issues raised in this second proceeding, are minimized by the overlap with the -243 IPR and other proceedings. See Notice 3–4. For example, Sarantos, the primary reference in this proceeding, is used as a secondary reference (to teach the light shaping functionality of the claims) in the -243 IPR and has been at issue in several other IPRs. See id.; -243 IPR, Paper 2, 1. As such, the Board and Patent Owner are familiar already with Sarantos and its contents, mitigating against the burden of considering it here.” slip op. at 16
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“On the present record, Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the ’159 patent and the asserted prior art. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s description. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). We note that we would reach the same outcome in this Decision under either definition of a POSITA. If the parties continue to propose differing levels of ordinary skill in the art during trial, they should state whether any issue in the case turns on those differences.” slip op. at 22
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningOther
“Based on the current record, we agree with Patent Owner that this claim limitation in claims 1 and 19 refers to different shapes rather than merely different sizes of the same shape. See Prelim. Resp. 14–16. At this stage of the proceeding, we determine that the language of the claim and the plain and ordinary meaning of “shape” seems to compel this result. As Patent Owner notes, two circles of different size still have the same circular shape. See id. at 14. We disagree, however, with Patent Owner’s argument that we should deny institution because Petitioner failed to apply this construction to the claims or intentionally withheld the parties’ district court agreement on this issue. Prelim. Resp. 12–13. Patent Owner does not point to any portion of the Petition that contends that different sizes amount to different shapes. See id. Patent Owner also seems to assume that Petitioner must have applied a construction that encompasses different sizes rather than different shapes when alleging that the prior art discloses the limitation, but Petitioner makes no such allegation in the Petition. See id. at 13, 16–17; Pet. 9–10. Patent Owner may ultimately prevail on this limitation. But, on the present record, we see no support for the argument that Petitioner implicitly used an incorrect construction and that the failure to expressly disclose the proper construction warrants denial of institution.” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,722,159 - Apple Inc. v. Masimo CorporationInstitutedPTAB · Jul 9, 2024 · IPR2024-00243 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–25 on all asserted obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Apple would prevail on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“based on the Delaware Litigation. Prelim. Resp. 16–33; see Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 11–12 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (holding that PTAB has discretion to deny institution in certain circumstances where there is a parallel district court proceeding). Our analysis under Fintiv is guided by the USPTO Director’s Memorandum, issued on June 21, 2022, titled “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation” (“Director’s Memo”).6 Pursuant to the Director’s Memo, we “will not discretionarily deny institution . . . where a petitioner presents a [Sotera] stipulation.” Director’s Memo 3 (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A)). Because Petitioner has offered a stipulation like that in Sotera, i.e., a stipulation to “not pursue for the instituted claims, in [the Delaware Litigation], the same grounds as in the IPR2024-00243 petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in that Petition” (Ex. 1078, 1), we do not discretionarily deny institution under Fintiv.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“At this point in the proceeding, we do not find it necessary, to expressly construe the term “opening” in order to reach a decision on institution and, under the circumstances, we do not find a basis for denying institution in Petitioner’s application of the claim language requiring an “opening.” But see infra Section F.3.b (identifying a potential issue that may benefit from record development on claim construction). Neither party offers an express construction of the term “opening” to the prior art. Pet. 5; Prelim. Resp. 12–15 (arguing inconsistency but declining to offer an express claim construction). On the present record, we are persuaded that the plain and ordinary meaning of “opening” encompasses Iwamiya’s optical filter 17 as mounted within light shielding frame 18. See Pet. 23–24; see infra at Section F.3.b. This is consistent with Patent Owner’s position, in the Delaware Litigation, that a solid material can provide an opening, and with the finding of the panel in the Final Written Decision in IPR2022-01291. Ex. 2035, 26 (Final Written Decision in IPR2022-01291); Ex. 2037 ¶¶ 463–465 (report by Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Sarrafzadeh in the Delaware Litigation, regarding non-infringement, reproducing an image that Petitioner represents is from Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Madisetti, in which Dr. Madisetti labeled transparent material an “Opening in Dark-Colored Coating,” and in which Dr. Sarrafzadeh asserts that “every space that Dr. Madisetti . . . identified is” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalTerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“prosecution history of a parent application, this language should be construed to exclude “arrangements of two or three detectors.” Prelim. Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 2057, 322 (prosecution history of U.S. Patent Application No. 15/195,199 (“the ’199 Application”))). Patent Owner notes that the panel in IPR2022-01291 adopted this construction for “a nearly identical limitation in Claim 15 of the related ’745 Patent.” Id. at 15–16 (citing Ex. 2035, 109–112). On this preliminary record, we agree with Patent Owner that, due to statements made during prosecution of a parent application, this claim language should be construed to exclude arrangements of two or three detectors. During prosecution of the ’199 Application, application claim 1 was amended to recite: a “tissue measurement site . . . having an at least partially circular shape bounded by a light block”; the light block comprising “an annular ring having a circular shape”; and a “plurality of detectors . . . arranged in an array having a spatial configuration corresponding to the shape of the irradiated portion of the tissue measurement site.” Ex. 2057, 311. Patent Owner argued to the Examiner that the “array” limitation had support in the ’199 Application specification because: The ordinary meaning of the claim term “correspond” means to “have a close similarity; match or agree almost exactly” or “be analogous or equivalent in character, form, or function” or “represent.” New Oxford American Dictionary, 390 (3rd Edition 2010). Consistent with this exemplary definition and the originally-filed application, the phrase “arranged in an array having a spatial configuration corresponding to the shape of the irradiated portion of the tissue measurement site” . . . would be understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art as requiring a sufficient number of detectors such that, when arranged together in an array, can “match,” “have a close similarity,” or “represent” the “at least partially circular shape” of the irradiated portion of the tissue measurement site. . . . In order for the claimed “plurality of detectors” to “match” or “represent” an “at least partially circular shape” or an “annular shape,” the “plurality of detectors” must include sufficient detectors to represent such shapes. For example, six or more detectors could be arranged in an annular shape and meet the recited limitation. However, two detectors, for example, can only be arranged in a spatial configuration representing a line and three detectors, for example, can only be arranged in a spatial configuration representing a line or a triangle. Thus, when read in view of the originally-filed application, the recited “plurality of detectors” would be understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art as including a sufficient number of detectors to represent the desired geometric shape.” slip op. at 18
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“On the present record, Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the ’159 patent and the asserted prior art. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s description. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining “the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). We note that we would reach the same outcome in this Decision under either definition of a POSITA. If the parties continue to propose differing levels of ordinary skill in the art during trial, they should state whether any issue in the case turns on those differences.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,722,159
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.