- Motif Foodworks, Inc. v. Impossible Foods, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 12, 2024 · IPR2023-00206 · APJ Donna M Praiss · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–12 and 14–24 are unpatentable as obvious over Giacino, Proulx, and Conrad, with Perret or MacLeod for certain dependent claims; the Board did not reach other grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The District Court’s claim construction for the term “compound” is shown below. Ex. 2016, 8–11. Claim Term District Court Construction The “sulfur compound” limitation must be satisfied by a compound that is present compound10 separately from a protein; “compound” will not be construed as being limited to compounds used as flavor precursors The District Court’s claim construction order cites to U.S. Patent 11,013,250 (the ’250 patent”) as representative of the ’096 patent and other related patents involved in the District Court litigation. See Ex. 2016, 7 (“Claim 1 of the ʼ250 patent claims is generally representative for purposes of the parties’ dispute.”). The District Court determined that plant proteins 10 Ex. 2016, 9, 11 (citing Ex. 1001, 15:26–27).” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“24. Pet. 20–26. Focusing on independent claim 1’s limitation “a compound selected from cysteine, cystine, thiamin, methionine, and mixtures of two or more thereof,” Petitioner asserts Brown’s disclosure of “pea flour” meets this limitation because “pea flour contains cystine, thiamine, and methionine.” Id. at 22–23 (citing Ex. 1012 (Brown) ¶ 364; Ex. 1003 (Tarte) ¶¶ 121–125; Ex. 1050/Ex. 1059 (Jahreis), 39, 41, 86; Ex. 1106, 3, 6–7). Petitioner qualifies that its mapping of “pea flour” to this claim limitation is based on the interpretation of “compound” as “not . . . limited to free compounds.” Id. at 22 n.7. Specifically, Petitioner states that the mapping is based on Brown’s “pea flour, which contains proteins having the claimed sugar and sulfur compounds.” Id. at 12; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 105 (reiterating this statement). Brown states, in pertinent part, “[a] muscle replica comprising pea flour, sunflower oil, and glucose.” Ex. 1012 ¶ 364. Dr. Tarté states in his declaration that a person of ordinary skill “would have understood that pea flour includes cystine, methionine, and thiamine.” Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 121–125. On cross-examination, Dr. Tarté stated that this mapping to the claim is based on an understanding that Brown’s proteins satisfy the sulfur compound limitation. Ex. 2032, 33:19–34:12; 98:11–99.9 (“[I]n as much as . . . Patent Owner considers proteins to satisfy the sulfur compound claim, then . . . the pea protein flour of Brown also satisfies the [sulfur] compound claim.”), 117:9–118:8. Patent Owner asserts that the Petition’s anticipation ground must fail if the claimed compound limitation does not extend to proteins. PO Resp. 13. Because we adopt the District Court’s construction of the claim term “compound,” Petitioner’s contention that Brown anticipates the ’096 patent necessarily fails. See Verdegaal Bros., 814 F.2d at 631 (“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.”). Petitioner concedes that the viability of this ground depends on construing the term “compound” to include whole proteins, and has failed to present evidence in this proceeding that Brown discloses a sulfur compound that is separate from a protein. Tr. 50:21–52:13 (Petitioner’s counsel conceding that the anticipation ground is not viable under the District Court’s claim construction for “compound”). Thus, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is unpatentable as anticipated by Brown.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNon analogous artDecided for patent owner
“The analogous-art test requires a showing that a reference is either in the field of endeavor of the challenged patent or is reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventor was concerned in order to rely on that reference as a basis for unpatentability. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Patent Owner argues that Petitioner fails to establish Crane as analogous art under this legal framework. PO Resp. 36–40; PO Sur-Reply 1–2. First, Patent Owner asserts Crane is not “from the same field of endeavor” as the ’096 patent. Id. at 37 (citing Ex. 2030 (Qian Decl.) ¶ 86). Based on this record, the ’096 patent is directed to food products while Crane, on the other hand, relates to “methods for producing recombinant functional heme-binding proteins.” Ex. 1001, 1:22–25; Ex. 1014, code (57). As Patent Owner points out, Crane does not even mention food products or any flavor functionality of heme-binding proteins. PO Resp. 37. Petitioner does not address Crane’s field of endeavor in its Petition or Reply. See Pet. 36–50; Pet. Reply 1 (“Petitioner . . . relies on the arguments made in the Petition for Ground 1 and 3A-3D”). We agree with Patent Owner that Crane is not from the same field of endeavor as the ’096 patent. Next, Patent Owner asserts the Petition fails to explain how Crane’s recombinant heme-binding protein is pertinent to the problem addressed by the ’096 patent inventors. According to Patent Owner, the problem solved by the inventors was “to provide meat-like-food products that overcome the limitations of prior-art meat substitutes.” PO Resp. 38. Crane, however, is directed to producing recombinant heme-binding proteins with complete heme incorporation. Ex. 1014 ¶¶ 3–5; Ex. 2030 ¶ 87. Neither Crane nor the Petition addresses how this is relevant to improving meat-associated flavors or aromas in food flavor additives. See generally, Ex. 1014; Pet. 36–50. The Petition asserts that Crane’s recombinant heme-binding protein, if used in place of Conrad’s blood/hemoglobin, which is added to improve taste, “would have produced the proteins with a high degree of purity.” Pet. 47–48. The Petition asserts that the benefit of high purity is greater control over the amount added and consistency in the end product. Id. at 48.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“argument at trial, we do not agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s basis for improving the nutritional content of the food product of Giacino is unsupported by the record. Proulx identifies iron deficiency as “a major nutritional problem, affecting over 2 billion people[.]” Ex. 1019, 1518; Ex. 1003 ¶ 93; see also Pet. Reply 25. Based on the evidence in this record, Giacino’s compositions lack a significant source of iron. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 387, 407. Furthermore, like Proulx, Giacino’s composition is intended to be an additive to food products. Specifically, Giacino’s composition is intended to be added to synthetic meat fibers, that may benefit from a source of iron, by mimicking not only the “meaty flavor” or aroma of meat, but the nutritional profile of conventionally sourced beef as well. Ex. 1003 ¶ 410; Ex. 1015, 7:22–26. This reasoning is supported by Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Tarté. Ex. 1003 ¶ 410. Patent Owner acknowledges the nutritive aspect of the addition is a “bonus” to the flavor impact. PO Sur-Reply 25–26. Proulx explicitly teaches adding leghemoglobin as an additive to food (“food fortificant”), therefore a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Ex. 1019, Abs.; see id. at 1521 (“added with tortillas”). Even if the addition of Proulx’s leghemoglobin were to produce autooxidation and impact Giacino’s meaty flavor, the benefit of Proulx’s leghemoglobin as an additive to a food composition is not disputed and supports the combination. “The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another.” Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine”). Moreover, the evidence of record regarding the asserted negative effect on aroma and flavor due to heme proteins is that this negative impact is merely a possibility. Ex. 2030 ¶ 76 (Dr. Qian states that heme proteins have an “unpredictable effect” and refers to statements made in related patent prosecution that “fortification [with] iron has a potential negative effect on organoleptic quality of maize products, in that soluble forms of iron can cause oxidative rancidity,” quoting Ex. 1148, 2715). Based on the evidence of record, the benefit of adding heme protein taught by Proulx outweighs the potential negative effect that it may have on Giacino’s flavoring additive. Thus, the preponderance of the evidence in this record supports Petitioner’s assertion that a POSITA would have been motivated to nutritionally fortify Giacino’s meat flavoring composition by adding Proulx’s soy leghemoglobin.” slip op. at 31
Patent outcomesUS 9,943,096 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,943,096 - PTAB · Jun 11, 2024 · IPR2024-00251 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–9 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3 and 5–9 are obvious over Neibauer and Cheng.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Based upon the present record, we determine that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine the asserted art in the manner described by Petitioner. We, therefore, find that Petitioner has shown sufficiently for purposes of institution that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have had reason to combine the teachings Neibauer and Cheng in the manner described in the Petition, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in so doing.” slip op. at 31
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“Cheng is sparse. Neibauer and Cheng were among dozens of other references identified on information disclosure sheets submitted during prosecution, and there is no clear evidence of record that Neibauer and Cheng were ever discussed substantively. See generally Ex. 1022. Petitioner argues that “the Examiner erred by overlooking [Neibauer and Cheng] and the compelling grounds of unpatentability they provided.” Prelim. Reply 1. “Neibauer and Cheng were stronger prior art because they disclosed the limitations the Examiner thought were missing from Chow, including the “uploading,” “reformatting,” and “automatically generating” limitations that he highlighted in the Notice of Allowance.” Id. In light of this sparse record, Petitioner’s showing on the merits with respect to Neibauer and Cheng is sufficient to demonstrate that the Office erred with respect to its consideration of these references during prosecution of the ’427 patent. To the extent the Office substantively considered Neibauer and Cheng and concluded that their combination does not teach claim 1, this was material error. It is also notable that the Office cited and relied on both Neibauer and Cheng in the reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 8,135,801 B2, a parent in the same family as the ’427 patent, which resulted in cancellation of all claims of that patent. For the reasons discussed below with respect to the merits, the asserted combination of Neibauer and Cheng sufficiently teaches claim 1. Given the Petition’s detailed analysis, including the supporting testimony of Dr. Madisetti, and the sparse record developed by the Office addressing Neibauer and Cheng during prosecution of the ’427 patent, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the Office materially erred when it found that the prior art does not teach claim 1.” slip op. at 18
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner states “[f]or purposes of this Response, [Patent Owner] applies Petitioner’s characterization of a POSITA.” Prelim. Resp. 17. Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the ’427 patent and the prior art before us and is supported by the testimonial evidence. Therefore, for the purpose of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s description. C. Claim Construction” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Given this preliminary record, we do not see a basis for adopting Patent Owner’s proposed meaning of “uploading” as “data sent from a client to a server.” We do not discern a rationale in the claims or the intrinsic record to include the term “client” within the meaning of “uploading.” Rather, given the current record, we preliminarily determine that the ordinary and customary meaning of the term “uploading” as it is used in the ’427 patent and would have been understood by someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention is “transferring data from an external data source to a set of servers.” This preliminary determination does not preclude the parties from proposing, presenting evidence, or arguing a different meaning for the term “uploading” during trial. To the extent the parties disagree with this preliminary determination, the parties should present their evidence and arguments as permitted by our rules.4 A final determination as to the ordinary and customary meaning of the term “uploading” as it is used in the ’427 patent will be made after the close of all the evidence and after any oral hearing in this matter.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,839,427 - PTAB · Jun 11, 2024 · IPR2024-00250 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–20 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that the Neibauer, Ausems, and Cheng combination renders claim 1 obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“An obviousness determination “does not require that a particular combination must be the preferred, or the most desirable, combination described in the prior art in order to provide motivation for the current invention.” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Oftentimes, the strongest rationale for combining references is a recognition, expressly or impliedly in the prior art or drawn from a convincing line of reasoning based on established scientific principles or legal precedent, that some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994–995 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Indeed, the Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that an implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the “improvement” is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal—and even common-sensical—we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves. In such situations, the proper question is whether the ordinary artisan possesses knowledge and skills rendering him capable of combining the prior art references. Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006).” slip op. at 25
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“We disagree with Patent Owner that all of the references Petitioner is relying on are the same or substantially the same as references that were before the Office. There is no dispute that Ausems and McElfresh were not considered by the Office. See Prelim. Resp. 8–12; Ex. 1001, code (56). Moreover, we do not agree with Patent Owner that Ausems is substantially the same as Rensin and that McElfresh is substantially the same as Dowling. For example, Petitioner relies on Ausems for a mobile communications device that incorporates a digital camera for recording, storing, and transmitting digital images. Pet. 24. The disclosures of Rensin 3 Petitioner’s citation to “POPR 13 (quoting Dowling, ¶0064)” on page 3 of Petitioner’s Preliminary Reply appears to be an error. Patent Owner addresses Dowling on page 11 of its Preliminary Response. cited by Patent Owner identify a camera as a PDA expansion slot device, but do not disclose expressly that captured images can be stored and transmitted as Ausems does. Compare e.g., Ex. 1006, 2:5–11, 5:17–22 with Ex. 2003, 2:2–21. We agree with Petitioner that Ausems was thus more relevant to the challenged claims, and more applicable to a prior art reference such as Neibauer, that disclose the ability of the user to upload photos to a remote server. Petitioner also relies on McElfresh for its teaching of selecting and delivering advertisements and integrating those advertisements with other content on the same webpage. See Pet. 52–60. For example, Petitioner describes how McElfresh’s “ad server or Rad Server 112 ‘performs the overall function of gathering the necessary information regarding a particular ad (or set of ads) and the particular user and generating a set of ads which have been optimized for placement on a webpage,’ based on (among other things) calculated click-through-percentage rates.” Pet. 55 (quoting Ex. 1014, 6:42–48). In contrast, Dowling’s disclosure cited by Patent Owner4 describes how a user may log into “a geographically controlled web site and configures the packet filter to display information related to a user’s needs,” such that that when the user drives along a mall, “a web page comes up and provides directions to the shopping mall and optionally provides an inside map of the mall to include directions to the desired store.” Ex. 3001 ¶ 64; 4 Patent Owner cites to Exhibit 2004 as Dowling (US 2005/0177645). Prelim. Resp. 11. However, Exhibit 2004 is U.S. Patent App. 2005/0171645, directed to a “Household Energy Management System,” listing inventors as Oswald and Tamsett. See Ex. 2004, codes (10), (54), 76. Dowling appears to have been filed as Exhibit 1030, not Exhibit 2004. Prelim. Resp. 11 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶ 64). Dowling’s disclosure is substantially different from McElfresh’s teaching of using a server to select and integrate particular advertisements onto a webpage. We have reviewed the portions of Rensin and Dowling cited by Patent Owner and do not see substantially the same structures or functionality relied upon by Petitioner in Ausems or McElfresh.” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art: would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or similar field, with two years of experience in developing and implementing network-based computer systems that interact with mobile devices, such as systems for storing and retrieving information over the Internet or communicating using the Web using wireless mobile devices. Pet. 5–6 (citing Madisetti Decl. ¶¶ 14–18). Patent Owner states “[f]or purposes of this Response, [Patent Owner] applies Petitioner’s characterization of a POSITA [(“person having ordinary skill in the art)].” Prelim. Resp. 16. We regard Petitioner’s definition as consistent with the ’348 patent and the prior art before us and supported by testimonial evidence. Therefore, for the purpose of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation. C. Claim Construction” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“An obviousness determination “does not require that a particular combination must be the preferred, or the most desirable, combination described in the prior art in order to provide motivation for the current invention.” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Oftentimes, the strongest rationale for combining references is a recognition, expressly or impliedly in the prior art or drawn from a convincing line of reasoning based on established scientific principles or legal precedent, that some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994–995 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Indeed, the Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that an implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the “improvement” is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal—and even common-sensical—we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves. In such situations, the proper question is whether the ordinary artisan possesses knowledge and skills rendering him capable of combining the prior art references. Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Dr. Madisetti articulates this very rationale by testifying that [t]he techniques of Cheng would have provided a distinct technological advantage by allowing the club system described in Neibauer to be delivered to mobile devices by converting web pages provided via Neibauer, thus obviating the need for the Yahoo! server to generate multiple different versions of those web pages (including potentially multiple mobile versions based on different mobile device and browser types), thus making it considerably simpler to provide club functionality to the web browsers of mobile devices. Ex. 1002 ¶ 106.” slip op. at 25
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,922,348 - PTAB · Jun 11, 2024 · IPR2024-00249 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–19, 21, and 22 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 was obvious over Neibauer, Ausems, Cheng, and Squibbs.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“relying on are the same or substantially the same as references that were before the Office. In particular, there is no dispute that neither Harvey nor Ausems was considered by the Office, nor that Harvey is not substantially the same as any reference that was before the Office. Prelim. Resp. 9–10; Prelim. Reply 3. Further, we do not agree with Patent Owner that Ausems is substantially the same as Rensin. Specifically, Petitioner relies on Ausems to teach the incorporation of a camera into a mobile device, permitting the recording, storage, and transmission of digital images. Pet. 23; Prelim. Reply 3. We have reviewed the section of Rensin to which Patent Owner directs us (Ex. 2003, 2:2–21), and we do not see substantially the same functionality. Although Rensin teaches that “PDA expansion slots may be used to enhance the PDA capabilities with a digital camera,” Patent Owner does not explain, and it is not clear from our review of Rensin, that Rensin discloses the use of the mobile device to transmit the images recorded by the camera. Ex. 2003, 2:2–21. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Rensin is substantially the same as Ausems. 3. Conclusion Based on our consideration of Becton Dickinson factors (a), (b), and (d), we find that the same or substantially the same art or arguments were not previously presented to the Office. Thus, our analysis ends at this point, and we need not proceed to part two of the Advanced Bionics framework. See Advanced Bionics, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8. We therefore decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution based on 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Based on the current record, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Ausems with those of Neibauer in the manner described above. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 114–117. Specifically, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have combined Ausems’s ability to share photos captured by a mobile device with Neibauer’s Yahoo! club in order to “dramatically expand[] the universe of image data that the club based on the current record, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Id. ¶ 117. Accordingly, on the present record, the combination of Neibauer and Ausems teaches limitation 1a.” slip op. at 22
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“to “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or similar field, with two years of experience in developing and implementing network-based computer systems that interact with mobile devices, such as systems for storing and retrieving information over the Internet or communicating using the Web using wireless mobile devices.” Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 14–18). At this stage, Patent Owner “applies Petitioner’s characterization of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” See Prelim. Resp. 15. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, as articulated above. We are satisfied that Petitioner’s proposed and implement the teachings of the ’578 patent and the asserted prior art. This definition is also supported by the testimony of Dr. Madisetti. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 14–18.8” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner does not believe express claim construction is necessary at this time.” Pet. 8. Petitioner also discusses various claim construction arguments made in the district court proceeding. See id. at 25–27, 65–66. At this stage, Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner that “no express constructions are required.” Prelim. Resp. 16. 8 If Patent Owner disagrees with this formulation of the level of skill in the art, it must raise that disagreement in its Response. If a different level of skill would affect the outcome in this case, the parties must brief that issue as well. The failure of Patent Owner to describe how a different level of skill in the art is determinative will be a forfeiture of that argument. If there is a dispute regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, then the parties are also encouraged to submit evidence, other than conclusory expert testimony, that supports their position. claim terms.9 See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,619,578 - PTAB · Jun 11, 2024 · IPR2024-00248 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 19–23 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 19 would be unpatentable as obvious over Neibauer, Cheng, and Squibbs.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“(1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. . . . If, after review of [Becton Dickinson] factors (a), (b), and (d), it is determined that the same or substantially the same art or arguments previously were presented to the Office, then factors (c), (e), and (f) relate to whether the petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8, 10 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (Institution Decision) (precedential) (footnote omitted). Consequently, we first turn to an analysis of Becton Dickinson factors (a), (b), and (d) to determine 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.” slip op. at 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“obvious over Neibauer, Cheng, and Squibbs. Pet. 3, 12–48. Based on the current record, we are sufficiently persuaded that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on this asserted obviousness ground with respect to at least claim 19.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Based on the current record, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the features of the Yahoo! club (information channels) with a mobile device, thus sending the photo “from a mobile device” and “permitting interaction between a user of the mobile device and one or more additional users,” as recited in claim 19. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 91. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have known that a person could use a conventional computer, such as a laptop computer, to run a web browser to visit pages on the internet, such as Yahoo!, including Yahoo! Clubs. Id. Because the ’039 patent describes a laptop computer as a “mobile device,” (Ex. 1001, 4:24–32), submitting a photo to a Yahoo! club from a laptop computer results in the receipt of the photo from a mobile device, as recited in claim 19.” slip op. at 23
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,032,039 - PTAB · Jun 11, 2024 · IPR2024-00247 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR of claims 1–25 on all asserted grounds; the Board found a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would be unpatentable as obvious over Neibauer, Miller, Cheng, and Squibbs.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“We disagree with Patent Owner that all of the references Petitioner is relying on are the same or substantially the same as references that were before the Office. In particular, there is no dispute that Miller was not considered by the Office. See Prelim. Resp. 6–13; Ex. 1001, code (56). Further, we do not agree with Patent Owner that Miller is substantially the same as Agboatwalla. Specifically, Petitioner relies on Miller for being able to select different types of communication tools for a group: Miller discloses a number of web-based forms that allow the user to (among other things) specify a name and description for the environment (Fig. 13B) identify the members of the environment (Fig. 13C, 14A-C), and select the various communication features (e.g. bulletin board, etc.) that will be available for members (Fig. 16). (Miller, 0045:12-0046:27.) With respect to the selection of communications features, Miller discloses a user interface for allowing the user to select (from a list) the environment. (Miller, Fig. 16, 0047:31-0048:9, 0042:29-32 (“The group creator selects from among these functions, preferably by way of an easy-to-use web browser interface, and these choices are stored in a database and associated with the group members.”).) These selections are then used in creating the environment or group. (Miller, 0043:3-6 (“In step 1104, the environment is created… to permit the group members to activate the functions selected for the group.”); EX1002, ¶96.) Pet. 18–19 (emphasis added).11 We have reviewed the section of Agboatwalla to which Patent Owner directs us (Ex. 2003, 2:32–50) and do not see substantially the same functionality. Although Agboatwalla describes a user being able to select what content may be viewed (see id.), Patent Owner does not direct us to, and we do not see, Miller’s teaching of selecting different types of communication pathways that may be selected for a group. Accordingly, Miller is not substantially the same as Agboatwalla. 3. Conclusion Based on our consideration of Becton Dickinson factors (a), (b), and (d), we find that the same or substantially the same art or arguments were not previously presented to the Office. Thus, our analysis ends at this point, and we need not proceed to part two of the Advanced Bionics framework. See Advanced Bionics, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8. We therefore decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution based on 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” slip op. at 14
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“f) Conclusion Regarding Claim 1 Based on the current record, there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in demonstrating that claim 1 is unpatentable as obvious in view of Neibauer, Miller, Cheng, and Squibbs. 6. Analysis of Claims 2–25 Because Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least one claim of the ’801 patent is unpatentable, we institute on all grounds and all claims raised in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Therefore, at this stage of the proceeding, it is not necessary for us to provide an assessment of every challenge raised by Petitioner, especially, as in this case, when Patent Owner does not separately argue those claims. Those challenges, in our view, are best left for trial after full development of the record.” slip op. at 32
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundOther
“Based on the current record, the combination of Neibauer and Miller teaches “control[ling] activation of a mobile information channel,” as recited in claim 1. As discussed above, the first user can create a Yahoo! Club by supplying the necessary information and selecting “Yes! I accept.” Neibauer is silent on whether the user can select which specific mobile information channels are associated with the Yahoo! Club. However, Miller teaches a similar collaborative web-based system in which the group’s creator can use an interface to choose specific communication pathways to allow: FIG. 16 shows one possible user interface for selecting communication tools to be made available to group members. This screen can be presented to the user creating the environment after the group has been identified and its members selected. It is contemplated that a variety of communication tools can be provided, including a bulletin board service; advertisements; white pages (e.g., a listing of members, their e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, and the like); yellow pages (e.g., a listing of promotional and contact information); document security (e.g., shared access secure document storage services); anonymous e-mail (described above with respect to the first embodiment); threaded dialogs; a group newsletter creation tool; videoconferencing; and even other user-provided applications that can be specified by name an location (e.g., URL). Ex. 1004, 47:31–48:10 (emphasis added); see also id. at 42:29–32 (“The group creator selects from among these functions, preferably by way of an easy-to-use web browser interface, and these choices are stored in a database and associated with the group members.”); Ex. 1002 ¶ 96. The combination of Miller’s teaching of selecting different methods of communication with Neibauer’s teaching of Yahoo! Clubs would allow the founder to select specific mobile information channels for the group to use. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 95–100. Based on the current record, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have combined those teachings in the manner described above. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 97–100. Specifically, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have combined Miller’s ability to select communication channels with Neibauer’s Yahoo! Club in order “to enhance the flexibility and customizability of clubs in Neibauer.” Id. ¶ 99. This would allow the founder to eliminate certain features that “may not have been particularly useful or desirable for some clubs.” Id. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success. See id. ¶ 100. Accordingly, the combination of Neibauer and Miller teaches” slip op. at 25
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Dr. Madisetti argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or similar field, with two years of experience in developing and implementing network-based computer systems that interact with mobile Internet or communicating using the Web using wireless mobile devices.” Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 14–18). At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner “applies Petitioner’s characterization of a [person having ordinary skill in the art].” Prelim. Resp. 19 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 42–44). For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation of a person having ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the invention claimed in the ’801 patent.8” slip op. at 9
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,825,801 - PTAB · Jun 11, 2024 · IPR2024-00246 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 6–11, 13–18, and 20–27, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Neibauer, Miller, and Cheng.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Dr. Madisetti argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or similar field, with two years of experience in developing and implementing network-based computer systems that interact with mobile devices, such as systems for storing and retrieving information over the Internet or communicating using the Web using wireless mobile devices.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 14–18). At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner “applies Petitioner’s characterization of a [person having ordinary skill in the art].” Prelim. Resp. 19 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 42–44). For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation of a person having ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the invention claimed in the ’336 patent.10” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner does not believe express claim construction is necessary at this time.” Pet. 8. Petitioner also discusses various claim construction arguments made in the district court proceeding. See id. at 28–29, 65. At this stage, Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner that “no express constructions are required,” and further agrees “that the ordinary and customary meanings of the claim terms apply.” Prelim. Resp. 19. For the purposes of this Decision, we need not expressly construe any claim terms.11 See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“considered by the Office. See Prelim. Resp. 6–13; Ex. 1001, code (56). Further, we do not agree with Patent Owner that Miller is substantially the same as Agboatwalla. Specifically, Petitioner relies on Miller for being able to select different types of communication tools for a group: Miller discloses a number of web-based forms that allow the user to (among other things) specify a name and description for the environment (Fig. 13B) identify the members of the environment (Fig. 13C, 14A-C), and select the various communication features (e.g. bulletin board, etc.) that will be available for members (Fig. 16). (Miller, 0045:12-0046:27.) With respect to the selection of communications features, Miller discloses a user interface for allowing the user to select (from a list) the particular features that will be included in the collaborative environment. (Miller, Fig. 16, 0047:31-0048:9, 0042:29-32 (“The group creator selects from among these functions, preferably by way of an easy-to-use web browser interface, and these choices are stored in a database and associated with the group members.”).) These selections are then used in creating the environment or group. (Miller, 0043:3-6 (“In step 1104, the environment is created… to permit the group members to activate the functions selected for the group.”); EX1002, ¶104.) Pet. 19 (emphasis added).13 We have reviewed the section of Agboatwalla to which Patent Owner directs us (Ex. 2003, 2:32–50) and do not see substantially the same functionality. Although Agboatwalla describes a user being able to select what content may be viewed (see id.), Patent Owner does not direct us to, and we do not see, Miller’s teaching of selecting different types of communication pathways that may be selected for a group. Accordingly, Miller is not substantially the same as Agboatwalla. 13 References to Miller are to Petitioner’s pagination in the exhibit, for consistency with the Petition. Based on our consideration of Becton Dickinson factors (a), (b), and (d), we find that the same or substantially the same art or arguments were not previously presented to the Office. Thus, our analysis ends at this point, and we need not proceed to part two of the Advanced Bionics framework. See Advanced Bionics, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8. We therefore decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution based on 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Based on the current record, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have combined those teachings in the manner described above. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 105–108. Specifically, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have combined Miller’s ability to select communication channels with Neibauer’s Yahoo! Club in order “to enhance the flexibility and customizability of clubs in Neibauer.” Id. ¶ 107. This would allow the founder to eliminate certain features that “may not have been particularly useful or desirable for some clubs.” Id. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success. See id. ¶ 108.” slip op. at 26
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,793,336 - PTAB · May 24, 2024 · IPR2023-00861 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Remand
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable under any asserted ground.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandOther
“Accordingly, the Director instructed us to “determine whether Petitioner has demonstrated that Figure 1 of Godefroy ‘is clear on its face’ or would have reasonably suggested the placement of Godefroy’s sacrificial anode ‘within 10 inches’ of the hot liquid inlet.” Id. at 9. “In making this determination,” the Director instructed us to “consider whether the expert testimony provides sufficient ‘technical detail, explanation, or statements supporting why the expert determines that the feature in question was required or would have been obvious based on the prior art disclosure.’” Id. In addition, although the Director’s decision “is limited to [our] application of Hockerson to the grounds in the Petition involving Godefroy,” the Director instructed us also to “consider what effect, if any, this decision has on the other asserted grounds.” Id. Finally, the Director instructed us to “set forth [our] interpretation” of “the limitation ‘within 10 inches of a hot liquid inlet to the radiator.’” Id. at 8 n.4.” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“original decision, the Director’s decision, and the evidence currently of record, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in showing that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of any challenged claim based on any ground asserted in the Petition. IV. ORDER For the reasons given, it is: ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, the Petition is denied, and no inter partes review is instituted.” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“evidence. The challenged claims require that a sacrificial anode be placed within a certain distance—10 inches—of the hot liquid inlet, and, because the inlet has some non-zero size, it might be possible for an anode to be within that distance from some parts, but not from all parts, of the inlet. Accordingly, specifying the center axis of the inlet as the point from which to measure the distance to the anode improves on the plain words of the claim in terms of achieving the claim’s objective of placing the anode within a specified distance of the inlet. Moreover, when discussing the distance from the inlet to the anode, the specification of the ’494 patent uses the language “within 10 inches in any direction of the center axis of the inlet connection.” Ex. 1001, 7:61–64. Thus, the intrinsic evidence supports adopting Petitioner’s claim construction. Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Medlin, relies on Petitioner’s proposed construction. See, e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 20 (noting that the construction “within 10 inches of the center axis of [a] hot liquid inlet” “ha[s] been adopted by Petitioner”), 96 (“the sacrificial anodes contained in each of the turbulators 2 would be placed within 10 inches of a center axis of a hot liquid inlet to the radiator of Tomosada”), 144 (“A POSITA would understand from Figure 1 that the sacrificial anode 14 is within 10 inches of a center axis of a hot liquid inlet”), 267 (“These teachings would further motivate a POSITA to located the sacrificial anode 12 within 10 inches of a center axis of the hot liquid inlet.”). This support for Petitioner’s proposed construction provides further reason for us to adopt it. Because it is supported by the intrinsic evidence of record, because Patent Owner proposes no alternative construction, and because Petitioner’s expert supports it, we adopt the construction of “within 10 inches of a hot liquid inlet to the radiator” that Petitioner proposes. Thus, we construe this term as “within 10 inches of the center axis of a hot liquid inlet to the radiator.” In other words, when discussing the distance between a hot liquid inlet and a sacrificial anode, we interpret “hot liquid inlet” as “center axis of the hot liquid inlet.”” slip op. at 5
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“Inherency may be relied upon in arguing either anticipation or obviousness. Schering, 339 F.3d at 1377 (applying inherency in an anticipation context); Par Pharma. Inc. v. TWI Pharma., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1195–96 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (applying inherency in an obviousness context). In both cases, however, “[t]he mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Instead, “the limitation at issue necessarily must be present, or the natural result of the combination of elements expressly disclosed by the prior art.” Par Pharma., 773 F.3d at 1195–96. Here, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that, in Godefroy, the sacrificial anode necessarily is placed within 10 inches of the center axis of the hot liquid inlet. Dr. Medlin testifies that Figure 1 of Godefroy shows that “an entirety . . . or at least a significant portion of the sacrificial anode 14, is within 10 inches of a center axis of the inlet.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 144. But we cannot say that Figure 1 of Godefroy is clear on its face, or reasonably suggests, that this is necessarily the case. There are no dimensions shown on Figure 1, so it is unclear from the figure what the diameter of pipe 12 is. If that diameter is larger than 20 inches, then it simply is untrue that “sacrificial anode 14 is . . . necessarily placed within 10 inches of a center axis of a hot liquid inlet to the radiator,” as Dr. Medlin testifies. Id. ¶ 361. As noted above, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Medlin relies on the hot liquid inlet of Godefroy having any particular diameter, and Godefroy is silent as to the diameter of its inlet. Pet. 69–70; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 144, 359–361, 381–382, 406–408; Ex. 1008, 1–15. Moreover, as Patent Owner notes, there is a wide range of sizes of radiators, including automobile radiators, available. Prelim. Resp. 3–5; Exs. 2001–2003. In the absence of any testimony or other evidence that tends to show that radiator inlet pipes necessarily have diameters less than 20 inches, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the diameter of Godefroy’s inlet pipe is small enough to ensure that any portion of the anode necessarily is within 10 inches of the center axis of the inlet.” slip op. at 11
Claim constructioncites Phillips - Luminex International Co., Ltd. v. Signify Holdings B.V.Institution deniedPTAB · May 9, 2024 · IPR2024-00101 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Menard was a real party in interest served with an infringement complaint more than one year before the Petition was filed.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barInstitution denied time barDenied
“Thus, the evidence shows that: (1) Petitioner and Menard are parties to an agreement; (2) under the agreement, Petitioner supplies accused products to Menard; (3) the agreement includes an indemnity provision; (4) under the agreement, Menard made multiple demands for Petitioner to “indemnify or defend as a matter of first defense”; and (5) Petitioner responded to Menard’s multiple demands by, among other things, filing the Petition challenging the claims in the ’336 patent. See Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 21, 24–26, 28–29, 32–33, 35; Ex. 2002, 5–9 (¶¶ 21, 24–26, 28–29, 32–33, 35); Ex. 2013, 5–9 (¶¶ 21, 24–26, 28–29, 32–33, 35); Ex. 3003 ¶¶ 21, 24–26, 28–29, 32–33, 35. That Petitioner responded to Menard’s multiple demands for Petitioner to “indemnify or defend as a matter of first defense” by filing the Petition shows that the Petition was filed at Menard’s “behest.” Specifically, Menard demanded defense from infringement liability, and Petitioner responded by initiating this proceeding seeking to free Menard from infringement liability for all 20 claims in the ’336 patent. See Pet. 15–89.” slip op. at 36
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityDecided for patent owner
“For the real-party-in-interest analysis, we initially consider “whether a petition has been filed at a nonparty’s ‘behest,’” i.e., “the heart of the inquiry.” Uniloc 2017, 989 F.3d at 1027–28; AIT, 897 F.3d at 1351; CTPG at 14. In its third-party complaints, Menard alleged that it and Petitioner “are parties to a Menards Customer Returns, Defective Goods Policy and Conditions of Order Agreement” that requires Petitioner to “indemnify, defend and hold harmless Menard from and against any claims, litigation, or suits,” including “patent infringement arising from Menard’s use, sale or offering for sale of any goods provided by” Petitioner. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 21, 24, 26, 28; Ex. 3003 ¶¶ 21, 24, 26, 28. Menard also alleged that the Conditions of Order Agreement requires Petitioner to “indemnify or defend as a matter of first defense and payment, not as a matter of reimbursement.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 29; Ex. 3003 ¶ 29.” slip op. at 35
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“to institute an inter partes review. We may institute an inter partes review only if “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). The “reasonable likelihood” standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018- 01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential).” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,299,336 - PTAB · Mar 26, 2024 · IPR2023-01424 · APJ Donna M Praiss · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–16 and 18–20, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the asserted grounds, including anticipation by Ueda and obviousness over Plante and Cho.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“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.” The following findings of fact and conclusions of law are not final, but are made for the sole purpose of determining whether Petitioner meets the threshold for initiating review. Any final decision shall be based on the full trial record, including any response timely filed by Patent Owner. Any argument not raised by Patent Owner in a timely-filed response may be deemed waived. For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at 1 Petitioner identifies itself as the real party in interest. Pet. 1. In addition, Petitioner notes that Spectrum Holdco LLC is its parent company and that Spectrum Holdco LLC and Spectrum Intermediate LLC “have a financial interest in, or could be substantially affected by the outcome of, this proceeding.” Id. 2 Patent Owner identifies itself as the real party in interest and notes that it is a wholly owned subsidiary of OraSure Technologies, Inc. Paper 4, 2. least one claim. We hereby institute an inter partes review as to claims 1–16 and 18–20 of the ’632 patent based upon Petitioner’s asserted grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“We decline to exercise our discretion here. As pointed out by Petitioner, the same or substantially the same art or arguments were not previously presented with respect to the ’632 patent. Pet. 123–24. Petitioner challenges the ’632 patent on grounds that were not asserted against the ’646 patent, namely the grounds based on Ueda. Id. at 71–123. In addition, we found Petitioner’s arguments based on Plante sufficiently persuasive and determined that the challenged ’646 patent claims are unpatentable. IPR2022-01347, Paper 43 (Feb. 7, 2024). For these reasons, we do not exercise our discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 16
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“(POSITA) “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. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 51–52). Petitioner further asserts that such a person would have collaborated with a team member with training and experience in the biological aspects of the invention and education and experience relating to the collection of biological samples. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 51– 52). Patent Owner does not offer an alternative definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art at this time. See generally Prelim. Resp. Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of one of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We determine that it is not necessary for us to construe “biological sample” or “annular valve” at this stage of the proceeding because neither party contends that construing either term is material to deciding whether to institute a trial on the asserted grounds in the Petition. See Nidec Motor Corp. 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 11
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,536,632
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.