- Fitesa Simpsonville, Inc. v. The Procter & Gamble CompanyInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 20, 2024 · IPR2023-01450 · APJ Avelyn M Ross · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims under § 325(d), finding the cited art previously considered or cumulative and no material Office error shown.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2019). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least [one] of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons set forth below, upon considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Reply, the Sur-reply, and evidence of record, we exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to deny institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“inter partes review, “the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” The Board uses a two-part framework in determining whether to exercise its discretion under § 325(d), specifically: (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).” slip op. at 9
Discretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,513,801 - Fitesa Simpsonville, Inc. v. The Procter & Gamble CompanyInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 20, 2024 · IPR2023-01451 · APJ Avelyn M Ross · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims under § 325(d), finding the prior art previously considered and no material error by the Office.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“b) Advanced Bionics Framework Part (2) Having determined that the “same or substantially the same prior art” previously was presented to the Office, we now consider whether Petitioner sufficiently demonstrates that the Office materially erred. In assessing the second part of the Advanced Bionics Framework, we consider Becton, Dickinson factors (c), (e), and (f) to determine whether material error has been shown. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 10. “An example of a material error may include misapprehending or overlooking specific teachings of the relevant prior art where those teachings impact patentability of the challenged claims.” Id. However, “[i]f reasonable minds can disagree regarding the purported treatment of the art or arguments, it cannot be said that the Office erred in a manner material to patentability.” Id. at 9. Petitioner bears the burden of showing that the Examiner materially erred. Id. at 8.” slip op. at 19
Discretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,326,276 - PTAB · Mar 13, 2024 · IPR2023-01206 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, and 4–23 based on three obviousness challenges involving Fugitt and the listed papermaking references.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Patent Owner that Papermaking is cumulative to Mohan. Petitioner relies on Papermaking to teach claim 1’s recitation that “a contact surface of said thermo-roller is heated to an elevated temperature of at least 250°F.” Pet. 32–34. Mohan discloses hot hard calendering of paper and paperboard to improve smoothness, where calender rolls have “a roll surface temperature of 250–400°F. during calendering of the web.” Ex. 2002, 1:7–10, 4:46–57.” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . 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). Institution of inter partes review is discretionary. See Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he PTO is permitted, but never compelled, to institute an IPR proceeding.”). For the reasons discussed below, the facts do not warrant exercise of discretion to deny institution, and the reasonable likelihood standard is met. We, therefore, grant institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner is correct that the ’142 Patent does not mention heating a counter-roller of a hot-hard calender, and the surface temperature of the counter-roller is not discussed. Prelim. Resp. 12. But nowhere does the ’142 Patent suggest that the counter-roller should not be heated to an elevated temperature. Under the applicable legal standard, the’142 Patent’s silence about whether the counter-roller is heated is not enough to justify reading a negative limitation into the claim. “negative limitation.” Ethicon LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 847 Fed. App’x 901, 907 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 15, 2021). “[S]uch exclusions must find support either in ‘the words of the claim’ or through an ‘express disclaimer or independent lexicography in the written description that would justify adding that negative limitation.’” Id. (citing Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003); CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366–67 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). “The standards for finding lexicography and disavowal are exacting.” GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term,’ and ‘clearly express an intent to define the term.’” Id. (citing Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365). Similarly, disclaimer or disavowal requires that the specification or prosecution history demonstrate that the invention does not include a particular feature. Id. Here, Patent Owner does not point to any claim language, lexicography, or disclaimer in the ’142 Patent or its file history that would support defining a “hot-hard calender” as requiring that only one of the two rollers be heated to an elevated temperature.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“As we understand it, one theory of obviousness advanced by Petitioner is combining Fugitt’s teaching that “[t]he rolls of the calender may be steam heated” with Papermaking’s teaching about the surface temperature that can be obtained when using steam to heat the rolls. Pet. 32–33; temperature of Fugitt’s steam-heated rollers in order to achieve a contact surface temperature of at least 250°F, as recited in claim 1. Instead, we understand Petitioner to be relying on Papermaking to teach the temperature of the unmodified rollers of Fugitt. Under this theory, it was not necessary for Petitioner to show that the paperboard substrate properties disclosed in Fugitt would still be achieved after increasing the temperature. Nevertheless, the Petition also relies on Papermaking’s teaching of temperatures that exceed the upper limit for steam-heated rolls, e.g., “[h]igh thermo roll temperatures (in some cases over 200°C [392°F]” or oil-heated rollers having surface that “can reach over 220°C [428°F].” Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1005, 82; Ex. 1010, 98). Patent Owner is correct that Petitioner relies on Fugitt’s disclosure of paperboard properties (smoothness and basis weight Y2 as a function of caliper thickness) obtained without modifying the roller surface temperature. Pet. 35–36; Prelim. Resp. 44. There is a factual issue as to whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have expected to achieve the paperboard properties disclosed in Fugitt and recited in claim 1, if the roller temperature were increased above the level achievable by steamheated rolls. There is also a factual issue as to whether Patent Owner’s evidence of increased energy cost would outweigh Petitioner’s asserted benefits of increased temperature. These issues are best resolved after the parties have had to the opportunity to develop the record and cross-examine the opposing experts. See Arctic Cat Inc. v. Polaris Indus., Inc., 795 F. App’x 827, 833 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board must weigh the benefits and drawbacks of the modification against each other, to determine whether there would be a motivation to combine.”).” slip op. at 25
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,293,142 - Amperex Technology Ltd. v. Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co., Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 12, 2024 · IPR2023-01349 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable on the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons set forth below, we determine the information presented in the Petition does not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of any claim on any ground asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDenied
“Given this, to show that Blangero’s disclosure of MgO or LiF in its coating teaches or suggests a rock-salt crystal structure, Petitioner needs to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art either would have understood the compounds to have a rock-salt crystal structure when manufactured according to the disclosure of Blangero or would have chosen to use MgO or LiF in a rock-salt crystal structure rather than in another available form. On the first point, Petitioner argues that “‘the stable phase at room temperature and pressure conditions’ of MgO is ‘a rocksalt cubic structure of NaCl (space group Fm-3m).’” Pet. 28 (quoting Ex. 1030, 16; citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 142). But, as Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Hayes, points out, Blangero does not teach forming MgO in a room-temperature process. Ex. 1003 ¶ 142 (Blangero’s “second firing step” occurs at “925 °C for 12 hours”); see Ex. 1005 ¶ 110 (teaching the firing step to which Dr. Hayes refers). Thus, the significance of rock-salt-type MgO being “the stable phase at room temperature and pressure conditions” is unclear. To the extent that Dr. Hayes explains why MgO, which “is well known to crystallize even at substantially lower temperatures,” such as “room temperature and pressure conditions,” would “do so more readily at [a higher temperature of] 925 °C,” this argument is not discussed, nor even cited, in the Petition. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 90–94; see Pet. 28. Accordingly, any reliance on this argument by Petitioner constitutes improper incorporation by reference. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3). Thus, Petitioner does not show sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art either would have understood MgO to have a rock-salt crystal structure when manufactured according to the disclosure of Blangero or would have chosen to use MgO in a rock-salt crystal structure rather than in another available form. Similarly, with respect to LiF, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Hayes sufficiently explains the choice of rock-salt-type material over other options. Pet. 29 (arguing only that Ex. 1013 shows that “LiF has rock salt structure”); Ex. 1003 ¶ 143 (same). Thus, Petitioner does not show sufficiently that Blangero teaches or suggests a rock-salt crystal structure by virtue of its teaching that either MgO or LiF is present.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not found
“The 2012 study on which Petitioner relies did not find “superior structural stability” over other lithium-titanium-oxygen compounds, as Petitioner argues. Instead, the study noted that the structure of “LiTiO2 prepared by high-temperature sintering TiO2 with lithium salt . . . impl[ies] LiTiO2 has superior structural stability in organic electrolyte as compared to other Li-Ti-O oxides.” Ex. 1029, 1. Thus, the structural stability was implied from the chemical structure of the material rather than found through study of the material. Moreover, the implied structural stability was only for LiTiO2 that was prepared in a particular way, by high-temperature sintering of TiO2 with lithium salt, and Petitioner does not allege that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have prepared the LiTiO2 they substituted for Blangero’s Li2TiO3 using this method. As for Petitioner’s argument that the study found that LiTiO2 outperformed Li2TiO3, we are not persuaded. The study compared particles with an LiTiO2 coating to uncoated particles, not to particles coated with Li2TiO3. Ex. 1029, 4, Figs. 4(c), 4(d). Although the study notes that particles coated with “[m]onoclinic Li2TiO3 and spinel Li4Ti5O12” exhibit “a noticeable capacity decay . . . when charged at high operating voltage and cycled above room temperature,” it concludes only that particles coated with LiTiO2 “exhibited inspiring high-voltage cycling capability as well as thermal stability than the pristine counterpart.” Id. at 1, 4. In addition, the pristine particles used in the study were made from “Li[NixCoyMnz]O2 (0≤x,y,z<1) (called as LNCM),” and the particles in Blangero do not contain either nickel or manganese in their cores. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 9–40 (particles contain lithium, oxygen, cobalt, and metals chosen from the group consisting of aluminum, gallium, boron, magnesium, titanium, iron, copper, calcium, barium, yttrium, tin, antimony, sodium, zinc, zirconium, silicon); Ex. 1029, 1. Petitioner does not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would expect the study’s results to extend to Blangero’s particles made from a different material. Pet. 29–30. Because Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Blangero teaches or suggests a second region comprising a rock-salt crystal structure or that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to substitute rocksalt-type LiTiO2 for the materials disclosed in Blangero, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on claim 1 on its Blangero-based grounds.” slip op. at 15
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner, “[i]ndividuals with different education and additional experience could still [have been] of ordinary skill in the art if that additional experience compensate[d] for a deficit in their education and experience.” Id. On the present record, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 19. In light of the record before us, and for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Based on our review of the ’660 patent and the prior art of record, we determine that the definition offered by Petitioner comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ’660 patent and the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,043,660 - Apple Inc. v. RJ Technology, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Feb 23, 2024 · IPR2023-01350 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 5–14 on all four asserted obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Apple would prevail on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine that the information presented in the Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on at least one of the challenged claims of the ’641 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to all the challenged claims of the ’641 patent on all the grounds of unpatentability set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the earliest possible priority date for the ’641 patent, “would have held a Bachelor’s degree in chemistry or chemical engineering, with at least 4 years of experience in cell design, electrochemical techniques, and battery materials development.” Pet. 4. Petitioner further contends that a “Master’s Degree can substitute[] for some of the relevant experience,” and “[e]quivalent training with battery specific experience can accommodate other degreed fields.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition, “except noting that other majors may provide equivalent education and experience designing, testing, and building lithium-ion batteries.” Prelim. Resp. 14. Upon review of the prior art of record and the parties’ arguments, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision. The parties may further address at trial whether “other majors” should be added to this definition, and whether such a modification would have any impact on the unpatentability analysis in this case.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither party contends any terms of the ’641 patent require express construction. Pet. 4–5; Prelim. Resp. 13–14. And, for purposes of this decision, we agree that no claim terms require express construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“This argument is not persuasive. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, the Federal Circuit has held that “generic” reasons to combine are not inherently suspect, and may reasonably include a desire to make a device “stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable or more efficient.” See Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 797 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (quoting DyStar Textilfarben GmbH v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Regardless, Petitioner’s asserted reasons to combine are specific (improved safety and less deterioration after repeated charging and discharging cycles), as is the proposed combination (implementing Sakamoto’s range of ratios for the positive and negative electrode materials in Yamaki’s lithium ion battery). Pet. 9–12. Identification of specific benefits that are tied to specific elements of specific prior art references is sufficient to support an obviousness ground. See Intel, 21 F.4th at 797.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,749,641 - Spectrum Solutions, L.L.C. v. Dna Genotek Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 7, 2024 · IPR2022-01347 · APJ Donna M Praiss · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3–8, 11, and 12 are unpatentable as obvious over each of four grounds: Plante and Cho, with or without Maples, and Plante and Patterson, with or without Maples.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“(POSITA or POSA) “would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, or similar technical degree and at least 3 years of experience in the medical device industry, including experience with containers and valves used in disposable medical devices.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 49). Petitioner further asserts that such a person would have collaborated with a team member with training and experience in the chemical/biological aspects of the invention, having a Ph.D. in microbiology, molecular biology, biochemistry, or related discipline and “at least two years of post-graduate experience in the area of biological sample preservation and nucleic acid extraction, preservation, and analysis.” Id. at 16–17 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 24–26). Patent Owner does not dispute using Petitioner’s proposed definition. PO Resp. 6.8 We apply Petitioner’s proposed definition because it is consistent with the problems addressed in the ’646 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings on ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 162 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for petitioner
“Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). “In general, a preamble limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” Id. (quoting Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). “Conversely, a preamble is not limiting ‘where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention.’” Id. (quoting Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). The court in Catalina noted that although no litmus test exists for determining whether to treat a preamble as a limitation, several “guideposts” have emerged from the case law in this area. Id. In particular, guideposts tending to show that the preamble is a claim limitation include: Jepson claiming, dependence on a particular disputed preamble phrase for antecedent basis, when the preamble is essential to understand limitations or terms in the claim body, and when the preamble recites additional structure or steps underscored as important by the specification. Id. On the other hand, the preamble might not constitute a claim limitation when the claim body describes such a structurally complete invention that deleting the preamble phrase does not affect the structure or steps of the claimed invention. Id. at 809. Also, “preambles describing the use of an invention generally do not limit claims because the patentability of apparatus or composition claims depends on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of the structure.” Id.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the Specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Additionally, ordinary, simple English words whose meaning is clear and unquestionable are to be construed to mean exactly what they say–– absent, of course, any indication that their use in a particular context changes their meaning. Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The abstract of the ’646 patent describes isolating and preserving cells from bodily fluids “for cellular analysis” and “genomic studies.” Ex. 1001, code (57). In the field of the disclosure portion of the ’646 patent, cells isolated from bodily fluids are preserved “for studies in any of: functional genomic and epigenetic studies, and biomarker discovery.” Id. at 1:25–29. In the background section, the ’646 patent describes the interest in “large-scale epigenetic research” for the purpose of “understanding the mechanisms of gene-environment interactions” suggesting that “epigenetic mechanisms may provide a molecular memory of environmental experiences.” Id. at 1:60–67. The background section further describes the challenges of collecting bodily fluids, such as saliva, is that it is a digestive fluid that can be rich in proteases and that existing solutions used to stabilize cells from blood, which is a transporter fluid, “will not protect cells from proteases found in some bodily fluids, such as saliva.” Id. at 3:24–36, 4:43–47. The detailed description section of the ’646 patent discloses “a solution for preserving cells in one or more bodily fluids, such as saliva and urine” that “may be beneficial for further separation into cell types and downstream molecular analysis” and “allows for storage of cells in the bodily fluid to retain their antigenicity and cellular architecture.” Id. at 16:9–15. The Specification describes some embodiments of solutions for preserving cells in one or more bodily fluids where the solutions contain a chemical fixing agent, a protease inhibitor, an antimicrobial agent, serum proteins, and are buffered to preferred pH ranges. Id. at 16:15–22. Thus, the plain meaning of “preserving a biological sample,” consistent with the ’646 patent disclosure focused on maintaining the architecture of cells contained in a bodily fluid that may include digestive proteases for further study downstream, is “preserving the integrity of a cell contained in a bodily fluid sample.”” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“We agree that it is not necessary for us to construe these claim terms because neither party asserts that they are material to the asserted grounds in the Petition. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 11,002,646 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,002,646 - Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. / Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP v. Seagen Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 16, 2024 · PGR2021-00030 · APJ Jeffrey N Fredman · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 9, and 10 are unpatentable for lack of written description, lack of enablement, indefiniteness, and anticipation by Ogitani.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“respective definitions for the level of ordinary skill in the art. While there seems to be a slight difference in whether the ordinary artisan has ADC design experience obtained after a master’s degree or postdoctoral, neither party provides clear basis to explain how this will impact the analysis. Accordingly, we find the parties’ respective definitions to be equivalent and consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art as reflected by the prior” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION We interpret claim terms using “the same claim construction standard” slip op. at 11
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot entitled to earlier dateUnpatentable
“4. Analysis We note that “[i]t is not sufficient for purposes of the written” slip op. at 23
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Enablement (Wands, Amgen full scope)Not enabledUnpatentable
“4. Analysis The facts here are consistent with the situation in Amgen, which” slip op. at 76
Patent outcomesUS 10,808,039 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · NautilusPatents in suitUS 10,808,039 - W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn v. Cochise Technology, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 11, 2023 · IPR2023-01063 · APJ Jane E Inglese · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable over the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner
“The disclosures of the ’864 patent thus align with the Patent Owner’s position that the recitation of a “CO to CO2 combustion promoter” in claim 1 constitutes a claim limitation because the disclosures show that the phrase is “necessary to give meaning to the claim[s] and properly define the invention” as described in the patent. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1262 (Fed. Cir. 1992); see also Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 151–152 (CCPA 1951) (determining that a preamble reciting “an abrasive article” should be given patentable weight for a claim further reciting that the article comprised abrasive grains and a binder because “it is only by that phrase that it can be known that the subject matter defined by the claims is comprised as an abrasive article” in view of the fact that “[e]very union of substances capable inter alia of use as abrasive grains and a binder is not an ‘abrasive article.’”). The Patent Owner thus provides factual and legal bases for determining that a “CO to CO2 combustion promoter,” as recited in the preamble of claim 1, is a claim limitation. By not taking a position as to whether a “CO to CO2 combustion promoter” constitutes a claim limitation, the Petitioner does not establish that this recitation is not limiting. We determine that the intrinsic evidence of record is sufficient to establish that a “CO to CO2 combustion promoter” is a limitation of claim 1 because the evidence shows that this phrase is necessary to give meaning to the claim and to properly define the invention. This determination is consistent with the District Court’s corresponding determination in the Markman Memorandum and Order. Ex. 2024, 12–19.” slip op. at 17
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We find, at this stage, that the asserted prior art itself is sufficient to demonstrate the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art). To the extent a more precise definition is required, we apply the Petitioner’s definition for purposes of determining whether to institute review, because it is consistent, on this record, with the disclosures of the asserted prior art references.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied merits
“Under Rule 42.104(b)(3)–(4), a Petition must identify “[h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed,” and “[h]ow the construed claim is unpatentable,” by “specif[ing] where each element of the claim is found in the prior art.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)–(b)(4). The Petitioner’s provision of an unsupported, implicit interpretation of a “CO to CO2 combustion promoter” does not meet these requirements. The Petitioner does not take a definitive position as to whether a “CO to CO2 combustion promoter” constitutes a limitation of claim 1. Nor does the Petitioner provide an express construction of this phrase. Instead, the Petitioner implicitly interprets a “CO to CO2 combustion promoter” in a particular manner, and bases assertions of the unpatentability of claim 1 on this implicit interpretation, without providing any support for the implicit interpretation. The Petitioner’s contentions, therefore, are not sufficient to support institution on Ground 1 because the Petitioner does not establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenge to the patentability of at least one claim asserted in this ground. Nor are the Petitioner’s contentions sufficient to support institution on Grounds 1A and 1B, because the Petitioner does not rely on any disclosure in Vaughn ’290, Peters, or Vaughn ’516 for any information that remedies the deficiencies in the Petitioner’s showing for Ground 1.” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not found
“In light of the state of the art as demonstrated by the Patent Owner’s evidence, the Petitioner does not persuasively explain why one of ordinary skill in the art seeking to produce a CO to CO2 promoter would have looked to Miura’s disclosure of a three-way exhaust gas purifying catalyst capable of oxidizing CO formed of platinum supported on the surface layer of microparticles. Nor does the Petitioner explain why this disclosure in Miura would have prompted one of ordinary skill in the art seeking to produce a CO to CO2 promoter to depart from the conventional approach in the art of producing such a catalyst by uniformly distributing platinum throughout a porous support, and instead distribute the platinum on the surface layer of a support. On the record before us, therefore, the Petitioner does not provide sufficient information and explanation to demonstrate that Miura in view of AAPA discloses or would have suggested a “CO to CO2 combustion promoter” as recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,224,864 - Duplo U.S.A. Corporation v. Mgi Digital Technology S.A.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 5, 2023 · IPR2023-00936 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1, 2, 4, 9, 10, and 12 under § 314(a), finding the Fintiv factors favored discretionary denial.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“G. Balancing the Fintiv Factors A holistic balancing of the Fintiv factors weighs in favor of discretionary denial. As discussed above, only factor 4 weighs somewhat against discretionary denial. The remaining factors either do not support institution (factors 1 and 6) or weigh in favor of denial of institution (factors 2, 3, and 5). Moreover, Petitioner has not submitted a Sotera-type stipulation or shown compelling evidence of unpatentability that would make discretionary denial inappropriate under the Guidance Memo. Given the late stage of the parallel District Court Proceeding, the substantial investment by the parties in that proceeding, and the lack of strong countervailing considerations, the evidence of record favors exercising our discretion to deny institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 32
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Not reached
“As such, even if we were to determine that Petitioner’s Nagashima- based challenges met the lower threshold for instituting an inter partes review (a question we need not reach in our Fintiv analysis), these challenges, if unrebutted in trial, do not plainly lead to a conclusion that one or more claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 25
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“1. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The level of ordinary skill is a factor to be considered when determining obviousness. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). Petitioner states that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical or electrical engineering or a related field and at least two years of practical experience with printer technology. Pet. 5. Petitioner further asserts that more relevant experience may compensate for less formal education and that more relevant formal education may compensate for less practical experience. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 27–28). Patent Owner does not propose its own definition but does assert that Petitioner has understated the level of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 9. For the purpose of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition, because Patent Owner presents no countervailing definition and because we find Petitioner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art adequate and supported on this record. We also note that our analysis would not change if we were to apply a higher level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that Nagashima discloses or suggests the claimed covering ink ordroplets of covering ink and, thus, Petitioner’s Nagashima-based grounds fail to present a compelling, meritorious, challenge. First, we disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that the ’806 patent defines covering ink as synonymous with “viscous product” so that “covering ink” broadly covers any “viscous product” including printing ink. See Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:21–22; Ex. 1003 ¶ 57–61). Rather, the ’806 patent states that “[i]n the present document, the terms of ‘covering ink’, ‘viscous product’ and ‘varnish’ are synonyms.” Ex. 1001, 3:21–22. We understand this sentence to mean that when ’806 patent uses the term “viscous product,” that the term is synonymous with “covering ink” within the ’806 patent, but is not intended to broadly mean that “covering ink” encompasses the entire universe of viscous products. We also determine that there are substantial issues with Petitioner’s argument that Nagashima discloses or suggests using covering ink in its device. Petitioner’s argument that Nagashima does not limit its device to any particular ink and identifies ink having different characteristics, including viscosity, does not plainly lead to a conclusion that Nagashima discloses use of covering ink. See Pet. 8. Nor does Petitioner’s argument that because some inkjet printers have been used to deposit covering ink, and those inkjet printers and Nagashima’s device both involve similar piezo-type ink ejection heads for ejecting different ink types and viscosities, plainly lead to a conclusion that a POSITA would have found it obvious to use Nagashima to apply a covering ink. See Pet. 9–10; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 62–66; see” slip op. at 24
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,783,806 - Amperex Technology Ltd. v. Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co., Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 5, 2023 · IPR2023-01016 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Institution
Institution was denied because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–8 were unpatentable over the asserted Shim- or Fujiki-based grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Because Petitioner relies on Shim and Fey to show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that fluorine would be present in a crack portion of the Shim or Shim/Lee particle, because the requirement for fluorine to be present in a crack portion appears in all the challenged claims, and because Petitioner does not show sufficiently that Shim and Fey would have suggested the presence of fluorine in a crack portion, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any claim challenged on the basis of Shim.” slip op. at 17
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in chemistry, chemical engineering, or materials science and at least five years of experience in the field of batteries and battery materials.” Pet. 33. According to Petitioner, “[i]ndividuals with different education and additional experience could still be of ordinary skill in the art if that additional experience compensates for a deficit in their education and experience.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 83–91). On the present record, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 19–20. In light of the record before us, and for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Based on our review of the ’828 patent and the prior art of record, we determine that the definition offered by Petitioner comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ’828 patent and the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“As explained more fully below, we need not construe any claim terms to determine that Petitioner fails to show sufficiently that the prior art teaches or suggests the subject matter of the challenged claims. Thus, after considering the arguments and information presented in the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that we do not need to construe any terms expressly for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Because Petitioner relies on Shim and Fey to show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that fluorine would be present in a crack portion of the Shim or Shim/Lee particle, because the requirement for fluorine to be present in a crack portion appears in all the challenged claims, and because Petitioner does not show sufficiently that Shim and Fey would have suggested the presence of fluorine in a crack portion, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any claim challenged on the basis of Shim.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,741,828
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.