- Xencor, Inc. v. Merus N.V.InstitutedPTAB · Sep 26, 2025 · IPR2025-00604 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 7–24, 26–28, and 30–32 on all four grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“institute trial in an inter partes review. We may institute an inter partes review if the information presented in the petition filed under 35 U.S.C. § 311, and any preliminary response filed under § 313, shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314. After reviewing the parties’ submissions in view of the existing record, we conclude that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood it would prevail in showing that at least one challenged claim of the ’286 patent is unpatentable under the presented grounds. See Pet. Therefore, we grant institution of inter partes review. Our reasoning is discussed below. A.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A POSA at the time of the alleged invention would have at least an advanced degree (e.g., a Master’s or Ph.D.) in biochemistry, process chemistry, protein chemistry, chemical engineering, molecular and structural biology, biochemical engineering, or similar disciplines; several years of post-graduate training or related experience (including industry experience) in one or more of these areas; and two or more years of experience in the production of bispecific antibodies. (EX1002, ¶¶16-17.) Pet. 15. Patent Owner states, “[f]or purposes of the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s proposed definition of a POSA.” Prelim. Resp. 10. At this point, we accept and use Petitioner’s proposed, and unopposed, definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan. It appears that Petitioner’s proposed definition comports with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the ’286 patent, itself. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). C.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningNo construction neededDecided for petitioner
“The ’286 patent uses the term “heavy chain” or “heavy chains” repeatedly; however, we find no express definition of the term. See generally Ex. 1001. Rather, the ’286 patent uses the term “heavy chain” in relation to antibody structure in a way that suggests the term is standard and well known in the art. See, e.g., id. at 3:19–59 (Background). The parties’ briefing on the technology reinforces this fact. See Pet. 5–14 (“The basic structure of natural IgG comprises four protein chains—two identical heavy chains (shown in red) and two identical light chains (shown in blue)—which are arranged in a Y-shaped configuration: . . . (EX1013, 112-13; EX1002, ¶¶23-30.)”); Prelim. Resp. 3–4 (“Natural or wild type Igs have a particular structure made of two identical light (L) chains and two identical heavy (H) chains. See EX2008 at ¶ 23. Each Ig heavy chain consists of three constant domains (CH1, CH2, and CH3) and one variable domain (VH), which is also isotypes, or a functional derivative and/or fragment of these. In a preferred embodiment, Ig-like molecules are produced that are antibodies of the IgG isotype because IgG antibodies e.g. have a longer half life as compared to antibodies of other isotypes. Ex. 1001, 11:9–21. As noted above (see supra Section I.C), IgG antibodies’ heavy chains have three constant domains, but IgE and IgM have four. Thus, Patent Owner’s argument that heavy chain means one variable and three constant domains, and two differently-binding Fab arms, ignores embodiments of the invention. consistent with the definition of heavy chain in the ’286 Patent. See EX2008 at ¶ 24; EX1001 at 11:58–66.”). This is also how the ’286 patent generally uses the term. See Ex. 1001, 11:58–12:1. But, the Specification does not limit its embodiments to only IgG antibodies because it also describes that the invention may be “IgG1, IgG2, IgG3, IgG4, IgA, IgE, and IgM” type antibodies, and fragments. Ex. 1001, 11:9–21; see also supra n.10 (quoting the ’286 patent’s definition of antibody). Other embodiments would not necessarily have the heavy chains as argued by Patent Owner. There is no evidence of record that the ’286 patent’s claims or the Specification generally use or limit the term “heavy chains” (or “heavy chain”) in any way deviating from its ordinary and customary meaning in the art. Therefore, at this stage of the proceeding, we decline to expressly interpret this claim language. 2. Summary on Claim Construction At this stage of the proceeding, we expressly construe no claim terms and give each claim term the ordinary and customary meaning it would have had to the person of ordinary skill in the art as of the invention date. See Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017. If either party intends to further argue claim construction at trial, they should do so in a clearly designated section of their briefing so as to expressly identify such arguments. See, e.g., 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) (content of petition); see also Board’s Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (CTPG) at 46, 48–45 (Nov. 2019).12 Claim construction arguments should not be relegated to patentability arguments on the facts.” slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“In brief summary, these limitations require one CH3 heavy chain to have a positive amino acid substituted in place of a neutral one, the other CH3 heavy chain to have a negative amino acid substituted in place of a neutral one, and that when the heavy chains are expressed by culturing the host cell these positive and negative amino acids interact and the antibody produced is a heterodimeric antibody. Petitioner asserts that Lazar expressly teaches engineering two CH3 domains so that, when expressed, they interact and form a heterodimeric CH3 interface by making neutral-to-positive and neutral-to-negative amino acid substitutions at known interacting residues on each CH3 domain, e.g., S364E (changing neutral serine to negative glutamic acid at residue 364) on one CH3 domain, and L368K (changing neutral leucine to positive lysine at residue 368) on the other CH3 domain; or T366D (swapping neutral threonine for negative aspartic acid at residue 366) on one CH3 domain and L351K (swapping neutral leucine for positive lysine at residue 351) on the other CH3 domain; that these residues were known in the art to be respective interfacing contact residues; that these modifications favor Fc heterodimerization; and that they result in a heterodimeric antibody (proof-of-concept shown by synthesizing and screening). Pet. 23–28 (citing Ex. 1001, 13:1–17, 17:67–18:3, 19:5–12; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 111–119; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 121, 183, 241 (Tables 1, 2); Ex. 1007, 8:9–10, 17:19–20 (Table 1); Ex. 1008, 244–36).” slip op. at 29
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,358,286 - PTAB · May 16, 2025 · IPR2024-01487 · APJ Julia Heaney · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been obvious over Nakazawa and Glaug.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “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). Upon consideration of the Petition in view of the record at this stage, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one claim challenged in the Petition. We also determine that the arguments and evidence of record do not support discretionary denial of the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Accordingly, we grant institution of an inter partes review of all claims and all grounds asserted in the Petition.1” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“person of ordinary skill would modify either Nakazawa’s diffusion sheet or Glaug’s fluid acquisition system, but rather Petitioner argues “various layers in absorbent articles are invariably interchangeable.” Prelim. Resp. 41–42. Contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, as discussed above, Petitioner explains why and how a person of ordinary skill would modify Nakazawa’s diffusion sheet, and provides reasons for doing so. On this record, we find Petitioner’s reasoning sufficient.” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner further argues Nakazawa teaches away from Petitioner’s asserted modification in which Glaug’s lower non-perforated layer is added to Nakazawa’s diffusion sheet. Prelim. Resp. 42. Specifically, Patent Owner argues Nakazawa teaches that its embodiment in which the second absorbent material is wrapped in a hydrophilic sheet has the advantage of preventing leakage of super absorbent polymer (“SAP”) from the second absorbent material without impeding permeation of excretory fluid through the hydrophilic sheet. Id. at 43 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 85, Fig. 15). Patent Owner further relies on Petitioner’s argument that Nakazawa’s hydrophilic layer is analogous to the lower non-perforated layer in Glaug. Id. (citing Pet. 93–94). Therefore, Patent Owner argues, Nakazawa teaches that Glaug’s fluid acquisition system would impede permeation of fluid rather than promote it. Id. Patent Owner’s teaching away argument is unavailing based on the current record. Patent Owner improperly relies on Petitioner’s contention in its anticipation challenge based on Nakazawa, and characterizes it as an argument about Glaug. As further discussed in Section II.G below, Petitioner’s anticipation challenge is based on analogizing Nakazawa’s hydrophilic sheet to a core wrap feature identified in Patent Owner’s infringement contention in parallel district court litigation. See Pet. 92–93. Contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, Petitioner’s obviousness contention does not argue Nakazawa’s hydrophilic layer is analogous to Glaug’s nonperforated fibrous layer. Because Patent Owner is not properly characterizing Petitioner’s obviousness contention, Patent Owner’s teaching away argument is not persuasive.” slip op. at 24
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“Under Fintiv, we consider the following factors: 1. whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one may be granted if a proceeding is instituted; 2. proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final written decision; 3. investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the parties; 4. overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel proceeding; 5. whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel proceeding are the same party; and 6. other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of discretion, including the merits. Fintiv at 5–6.” slip op. at 35
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,308,138 - Mastercard Incorporated And Mastercard International Incorporated v. Ov Loop, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 19, 2025 · IPR2023-01289 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–33 are unpatentable as obvious over Collinge; the Board did not reach the anticipation grounds based on Collinge or the grounds based on Fiske.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “the equivalent of an undergraduate degree in electrical and computer engineering (or a related field) and approximately two years of work experience in the field of secure payment system,” and that “[a]dditional education in the field could be substituted for industry experience, and vice versa.” PO Resp. 4. Patent Owner does not suggest that its proposed level of ordinary skill materially differs from the level of skill proposed by Petitioner. See id. We find, on the current record, that the ’171 patent and the cited prior art references reflect the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention and that the level of appropriate skill reflected in these references and in the ’171 patent is consistent with the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill. We would have reached the same conclusions in this Decision had we adopted Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“In light of the lack of any dispute over the Second Construction, a construction we find consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim language, we need not resolve whether the claim language also encompasses Petitioner’s First Construction. Moreover, as explained below, we find Collinge renders obvious the subject matter of the limitation under either construction. See infra Section III.D.5. For the foregoing reasons, we find that an express construction of any claim term is not necessary for purposes of this Decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNot reached
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“We disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments because here Petitioner is not relying on some other disclosure to fill a missing limitation absent from Collinge, but is instead relying only on Collinge and the knowledge a person of ordinary skill in the art would possess when appreciating the teachings of Collinge. Petitioner is not suggesting Collinge needed to be modified to add the use of an APDU, but, rather, that Collinge’s disclosure already contemplated it based on the well-known background of the art. Petitioner shows by a preponderance of the evidence that “the Collinge Provisionals state the disclosures therein are intended to be used in a ‘standard’ PayPass transaction,” and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered “the PayPass Specification (and EMV Specifications, with which the PayPass Specification complies) when reading Collinge.” Pet. Reply 8 (citing Ex. 1009, 8, 14–15, 22–23; Ex. 1050 ¶ 22). in a “standard” PayPass transaction and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known, at a minimum, that it would have been obvious from Collinge that the “first set of data” (i.e., the encrypted payload in Collinge) would have been “usable” by the application of Collinge “to formulate an application protocol data unit response,” as required by limitation [1.C]. Petitioner further demonstrates how Collinge discloses that the “first set of data” was “useable by the application to formulate” an APDU response in addressing limitation [1.E–3], which specifically requires “generating a response.” See Pet. Reply 11 (explaining that “[d]etails of how [the encrypted payload] is used to formulate an APDU response are explained where that is separately claimed”); see also id. (citing Pet. 48–50 (addressing limitation [1.E-3])).” slip op. at 36
Patent outcomesUS 10,032,171 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,032,171 - Cimbria Srl v. 3u Vision SrlInstitutedPTAB · Sep 20, 2024 · PGR2024-00018 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–15 and all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3, 6, and 10 are obvious over ElMasry.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), a post-grant review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . demonstrate[s] that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” Post-grant review is available for patents that issue from applications that at one point contained at least one claim with an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. See Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), §§ 3(n)(1), 6(f)(2)(A). After considering the briefing and the evidence of record, for the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has shown that the ’947 patent is eligible for post-grant review, and has shown it is more likely than not that at least one challenged claim of the ’947 patent is unpatentable under § 324(a). Accordingly, we institute a post-grant review of the challenged claims of the ’947 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have a B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering, Physics, Chemistry, or an equivalent field, and at least 2-3 years of academic or industry experience in engineering related to optical sorting systems.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 21). Patent Owner did not file a Preliminary Response to the Petition and, therefore, at this point, does not contest Petitioner’s definition for one of ordinary skill in the art. Petitioner’s proposed definition appears to be consistent with the disclosure of the ’947 patent, and we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that the prior art itself may “reflect[] an appropriate level” of ordinary skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Having considered the record, we determine that no express claim construction is necessary for any claim terms for the purposes of rendering a decision to institute trial. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). At this stage, we find it unnecessary to resolve whether “electronic control unit” and “processing module” should be construed as mean plus function limitations under § 112(f), because it is possible to address the obviousness grounds presented whether or not these limitations are so construed, and even if the claims were indefinite in the manner Petitioner contends. See Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 801, 813 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (noting indefiniteness of a means-plus-function limitation does not always render it impossible to adjudicate a prior-art challenge). We direct the parties to address the construction of these claim terms and Petitioner’s interpretation during trial.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“We have reviewed Petitioner evidence and citations and, on the current record, we find that Petitioner has shown that it is more likely than not that ElMasry teaches all the limitations of claim 1, without need for any modification. Thus, we find that Petitioner has shown that it is more likely than not that claim 1 would have been unpatentable as obvious over ElMasry.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 11,666,947 - PTAB · Sep 10, 2024 · IPR2024-00563 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 12, and 28 because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness over Gil, Norden, Dean, Alphagan, and Federal Register.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDecided for petitioner
“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.” Our § 325(d) analysis employs a two-prong framework: (1) whether the arguments presented in the petition are the same or substantially the same as those previously presented to the Office; and (2) if so, whether the petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office in its prior consideration of those arguments. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Electromedizinishe Gerӓte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (“Advanced Bionics”), 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). “If a condition in the first part of the framework is satisfied and the petitioner fails to make a showing of material error, the Director generally will exercise discretion not to institute inter partes review.” Id. at 8–9. “At bottom, this framework reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Id. at 9.” slip op. at 17
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“the District of New Jersey is more than three years, argues that “a trial may not be held until 2026—well after a FWD would be expected in this proceeding.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1027, 2); Reply 8. Based on this evidence of the median time to trial in the district, we find factor 2 weighs in favor of institution. See Fintiv Memo 3 (“[W]hen considering the proximity of the district court’s trial date to the date when the PTAB final written decision will be due, the PTAB will consider the median time from filing to disposition of the civil trial for the district in which the parallel litigation resides.”)” slip op. at 22
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingOther
“guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms.” Phillips, 415 F.3d 1314. Claim 1 is directed to “[a] method for reducing eye redness in a human subject having ocular hyperemia.” The preamble is limiting because (1) it provides the antecedent bases for “said human” and “said reduction of eye redness” recited in the body of the claim; and (2) “it is a statement of the intentional purpose for which the method must be performed.” See Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH, 8 F.4th 1331, 1341–43 (Fed. Cir. 2021). The preamble, however, does not require that eye redness is actually reduced. Id. Nor does the body of the claim recite any efficacy requirement.” slip op. at 24
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITADecided for petitioner
“In claim construction, “the claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms.” Phillips, 415 F.3d 1314. Claim 1 is directed to “[a] method for reducing eye redness in a human subject having ocular hyperemia.” The preamble is limiting because (1) it provides the antecedent bases for “said human” and “said reduction of eye redness” recited in the body of the claim; and (2) “it is a statement of the intentional purpose for which the method must be performed.” See Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH, 8 F.4th 1331, 1341–43 (Fed. Cir. 2021). The preamble, however, does not require that eye redness is actually reduced. Id. Nor does the body of the claim recite any efficacy requirement.” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,596,600 - Neogenomics Laboratories, Inc. v. Natera, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 21, 2024 · IPR2024-00346 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1–28 under § 325(d), finding the same or substantially the same art had been presented to the Office and no material examination error was shown.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” Our § 325(d) analysis employs a two-prong framework: (1) whether the arguments presented in the petition are the same or substantially the same as those previously presented to the Office; and (2) if so, whether the petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office in its prior consideration of those arguments. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Electromedizinishe Gerӓte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (“Advanced Bionics”), 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). “If a condition in the first part of the framework is satisfied and the petitioner fails to make a showing of material error, the Director generally will exercise discretion not to institute inter partes review.” Id. at 8–9. “At bottom, this framework reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Id. at 9.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied 325dInstitution denied
“III. CONCLUSION Because the same or substantially the same art previously were presented to the Office and Petitioner has not demonstrated that the examiner materially erred when considering the prior art, we exercise our discretion under § 325(d) and decline to institute inter partes review of the ’454 patent.10 IV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“erred when considering the multiplex-amplification limitation. See Advanced Bionics, 9 (“If 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.”). Under the asserted grounds, Petitioner relies on Forshew as the sole reference to teach this limitation, which is required in all challenged claims. Thus, we exercise our discretion under § 325(d) and decline to institute inter partes review of the ’454 patent.” slip op. at 13
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,530,454 - PTAB · May 31, 2024 · IPR2024-00235 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–6, 8, 10, and 14–16 based on a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 14 are anticipated by Young and obvious over Young and Norrie.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Provisur proposes that one of ordinary skill in the art typically would have had: (1) a bachelor’s degree (or equivalent) in mechanical engineering (or a similar field) and at least two years of experience working as an engineer (or similar role) on food processing and/or packaging systems (or in a similar field); or (2) at least seven years of experience working as an engineer (or similar role) on food processing and/or packaging systems (or in a similar field). Pet. 12. Weber does not contest Provisur’s framing of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Because Provisur’s proposed definition is consistent with the level of skill described in the ’321 patent and the prior art of record, we adopt it here for purposes of institution.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Provisur asserts that the claim terms should be construed “according to their plain and ordinary meanings as understood by [one of ordinary skill in the art] in view of the specification and prosecution history” and that “[n]o terms require an explicit construction to resolve the unpatentability 4 US 5,514,032, issued May 7, 1996 (Ex. 1004, “Young”). 5 US 4,979,269, issued Dec. 25, 1990 (Ex. 1005, “Norrie”). 6 US 6,929,540 B2, issued Aug. 16, 2005 (Ex. 1006, “Johnson”). 7 US 6,198,834 B1, issued Mar. 6, 2001 (Ex. 1007, “Belk”). controversy between the parties here.” Pet. 13. Weber appears to agree, its counsel stating in the parallel Missouri action that “most of [Weber’s] patent claims are plain and ordinary . . . [t]hey’re not difficult or complex claims or claim terms.” Ex. 1028, 5. There being no dispute, we need not expressly construe any claim terms at this stage, because we can decide the threshold question of institution without further construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (approving Board decision not to construe claim language where the construction is not material to the dispute).” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“Weber requests that we deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) due to the advanced state of the parallel Missouri action. See Prelim. Resp. 6– 17. Provisur disputes that discretionary denial is warranted (Pet. 73–77), but nonetheless submits a Sotera stipulation (Ex. 1029) in an effort to resolve the issue.8 In light of Provisur’s Sotera stipulation, we will not discretionarily deny institution under § 314(a). See Director Memorandum, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA-Post Grant Proceedings With Parallel District Court Litigation, U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (June 21, 2022), at 3, 7.” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“We disagree with Weber’s position, at least on the current record. Instead, we find that Provisur presents sufficient evidence that Young anticipates all elements of independent claims 1 and 14, including the disputed limitation requiring “automatic determination of the thickness of the fat cover.” In particular, Young’s imaging system 190 includes multiple cameras, including top plan camera 196, end view camera 197, and fat line camera 198, as well as controller 172 and real-time image processor 194. Ex. 1004, 17:34–59, 18:46–56, Figs. 2, 13. As described by Young, top plan camera 196 is primarily used to obtain “physical dimensions and characteristics” of the meat product, end view camera 197 is primarily used to determine the “height” of meat product and “to create a clear delineation along the top edge of the end” of the meat product, whereas fat line camera 198 is primarily used to determine the fat/lean separation line of the meat product. See id. at 17:59–18:39. Those disclosures by Young clearly contemplate determining specific dimensions of the meat product, and not simply identifying the fat/lean separation line, as Weber suggests. See Prelim. Resp. 19. To determine the “thickness” of the fat cover, Young’s imaging system has image processing routine 240, which “generates a fat/lean separation line and an edge line . . . representing the outer surface of the pork side proximate the fat/lean line” and uses those lines to calculate “the height, width, and length of the [meat product].” Ex. 1004, 23:12–25, 24:10–22. As part of routine 240, controller 172 uses that information to set the cutting profile of knife assembly 100 “so that the assembly follows a fixed distance from the separation line to provide the optimum fat cover for the loin.” Id. at 18:35–39 (emphasis added). Notably, according to Young, the “fixed distance” represents the “desired” thickness of fat that remains on the meat, after cutting, and “sufficiently keeps the loin from drying out, but doesn’t make the loin look too fat.” Id. at 20:60–66; see also id. at 10:39–42 (“Through control of the knife blade along several axes, assembly 100 preferably produces an optimum separation between loin and belly, with a desired fat covering left on the loin.” (emphasis added)). Young’s disclosure that image processing routine 240 determines a “fixed distance” from the loin/fat separation line at which to cut the meat product undoubtedly corresponds to the claimed “determination of the thickness of the fat cover . . . in a contactless manner.” See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 104–112. Indeed, Young discloses specific dimensions for the desired optimum fat cover to remain on the meat—“a fixed distance (preferably 0.1 inch) from the fat/lean separation line 6.” Ex. 1004, 20:55–63.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,529,321 - Dexcom, Inc. v. Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Apr 16, 2024 · IPR2023-01397 · APJ John G New · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all grounds because Dexcom did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–4, 8, 9, and 11–27 were unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We do not find Petitioner’s argument persuasive. Figure 29 is a “cross-sectional view,… of the insertion device” disclosed by Raymond. Ex. 1110 ¶ 55. Another view of base 122 is depicted in Raymond’s Figure 18, a detail of which is reproduced below: Detail of Figure 18 of Raymond showing base 122 As depicted in Figure 18, base 122 of Raymond’s device comprises a circular disk, with an annular ring on the proximal side. This view is consistent with the cross-sectional view of base 122 in Raymond’s Figure 29, reproduced below: Detail of Raymond’s Figure 29 depicting a cross-sectional view of base 122 The annular ring of base 122, as depicted in Raymond’s Figures 18 and 29 thus comprises, at most, a single recess encircling base 122 beneath the annular ring at the periphery of the base. As such, it neither teaches nor suggests “a plurality of recesses disposed on a periphery of the on-body electronics unit housing, wherein the plurality of recesses comprises a first recess in a spaced relation to a second recess,” as required by challenged claim 1 of the ’335 patent. Petitioner’s argument that Figures 20 and 30 of Raymond depict” slip op. at 29
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Detail of Raymond’s Figure 29 depicting a cross-sectional view of base 122 The annular ring of base 122, as depicted in Raymond’s Figures 18 and 29 thus comprises, at most, a single recess encircling base 122 beneath the annular ring at the periphery of the base. As such, it neither teaches nor suggests “a plurality of recesses disposed on a periphery of the on-body electronics unit housing, wherein the plurality of recesses comprises a first recess in a spaced relation to a second recess,” as required by challenged claim 1 of the ’335 patent. Petitioner’s argument that Figures 20 and 30 of Raymond depict plural recesses in Raymond’s base 122 is based upon a false premise. See Pet. 37–38. The depiction of base 122 in these Figures is entirely consistent with the depiction of base 122 in Raymond’s Figure 18 as having an annular ring with a single recess situated beneath its rim. With respect to Petitioner’s argument that it would have been an obvious design choice to implement two spaced-apart plural recesses on the housing (see Pet. 38), neither Petitioner nor its Declarant, Dr. Fletcher, adduces any evidence beyond that conclusory statement. Id. at 38 (citing Ex. 1103 ¶ 70; Ex. 1110, Figs. 18, 25–27); Ex. 1003, 77. Petitioner makes no persuasive argument as to why a skilled artisan would substitute multiple recesses for a single annular ring, which seemingly serves the purpose of allowing base 122 to be held in position by base-retaining arms 1226. To the contrary, substituting multiple recesses in base 122 to engage retaining arms 1226, and ensuring that each retaining arm 1226 suitably engages each recess, would seem only to add needless complexity to the design, without producing a substantial benefit or improvement.” slip op. at 30
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Turner’s rotation-resisting recesses 77 are not located on the periphery of its body 20. Instead, they are disclosed as being located upon the upper surface of body 20, between its central axis and its edge, and are configured to receive rotation-resisting protrusions 71 of insertion device 70. This placement of rotation-resisting recesses 77 is depicted in Figure 9 of Turner, which is reproduced again below: Figure 9 of Turner is a perspective, exploded view of its fluid delivery system including body 20 and rotation-restricting recesses 77 We therefore find that Turner does not teach or suggest the limitation of challenged claim 1 (and all claims by their dependency) reciting “an on body electronics unit housing comprising a plurality of recesses disposed on a periphery of the on body electronics unit housing.” We further conclude that Petitioner provides no persuasive reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to alter the location of Turner’s rotation-resisting recesses 77 from the upper surface to the circumferential periphery of body 20, because Turner and the ’335 patent teach that their respective recesses serve different functions. Turner teaches that:” slip op. at 47
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached
“Because we deny institution of inter partes review on the merits, we need not reach the parties’ arguments with respect to whether we should exercise our discretion and deny institution of inter partes review under Section 325(d). As we conclude in Sections IV.B.2.d and IV.C.2.c above, Petitioner has failed to meet its burden of showing a reasonable likelihood of demonstrating at trial that the challenged claims are unpatentable over the combination of Thomas and Raymond, or of Thomas, Raymond, and Turner. That remains true even if, arguendo, the Examiner materially erred in concluding that Thomas is not prior art to the ’335 patent, an issue upon 13 Thomas et al. (US 2010/0198034 A1, August 5, 2010) (“Thomas ’034”), Ex. 2101. 14 The publication date of the Thomas reference that is a basis of Grounds 1 and 2 in this inter partes review is August 12, 2010, one week after the publication of Thomas ’034. which we express no view. We consequently deny as moot Patent Owner’s request that we exercise our discretion under Section 325(d).” slip op. at 51
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,266,335 - Edwards Lifesciences Corporation / Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Aortic Innovations LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jan 9, 2024 · IPR2023-01151 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all asserted grounds because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged, undisclaimed claim was unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter partes review may not be instituted unless 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.” For reasons discussed below, we do not institute review of claims 2, 9, 17, and 18 of the ’834 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner proposes that the person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) in November 2012 “would have been an interventional cardiologist with a working knowledge of heart valve designs and endovascular prostheses. This [POSA] would, where necessary, work with a medical device engineer to experiment with or manufacture a prosthetic heart valve.” Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 49). Patent Owner does not expressly contest Petitioner’s proposed definition. For this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s proposed POSA level, which appears to be consistent with the level of skill shown in the prior art of record. See Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). This POSA level is also consistent with the level the Board applied in earlier decisions involving the same parties and related patents. See, e.g., Ex. 2124, 11; Ex. 1120, 11–12.” slip op. at 16
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedMixed
“during prosecution. Pet. 18, 99. According to Petitioner, Spenser II never describes its compressible material as including “tightly knitted fibers” and a POSA would, instead, have understood Spenser II’s compressible material as comprising “loose, porous materials.” Pet. 18, 99. We agree with Petitioner that the phrases “tightly knitted” and “tightly knitted fibers” do not appear in Spenser II. At the same time, neither does Spenser II describe its compressible material as being “loose” and “porous.” Notably, in prior proceedings before the Board, Petitioner’s declarant Dr. Buller testified that Spenser II’s compressible material “includes a plurality of PET fibers on the inward-facing surface of the compressible material” (i.e., the “base layer” and alleged “second plurality” of fibers here; Paper 9, 5), that is “sufficiently dense to prevent blood from leaking through the cloth/fabric.” Ex. 2128 ¶ 222; see also Ex. 2122, 20:2–22:18 (testifying that “nonporous” as used in the Specification means “that fluid would not pass through it” and such fluid includes “all components of blood”). We find that Dr. Buller’s description of Spenser II as having a dense, blood impermeable base layer is, on balance, more consistent with applicant’s characterization of Spenser II as having an arrangement of “tightly-knitted fibers”—even if some imagined or microscopic spaces between fibers might still exist in a base layer. Ex. 2128 ¶ 222; see also Ex. 2002 (Brecker testimony) ¶¶ 42–45 (testifying, inter alia, that the description of a “tight fitted outer seal is . . . consistent with Spenser II’s Figure 22” and “knitted” is consistent with Buller’s testimony describing Spenser II’s compressible material as “velour-like woven or knitted” PET (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 162; Ex. 2134 ¶ 56). We are, thus, unpersuaded on this record that applicant mischaracterized Spenser II.” slip op. at 38
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Altogether, the parties’ alleged “plain meaning” yet otherwise undefined interpretation of the “spacing” limitations leaves the Board with insufficient clarity about what the claimed “spacing” means in the affirmative. Paper 9, 3 (arguing “plain meaning”); Paper 11, 3 (arguing applicant’s arguments are in “full harmony with the plain meaning”). The intrinsic evidence is minimally helpful: the Specification does not use the term “spacing” in relation to the positioning of adjacent fibers; the drawings might be helpful but neither party proposes a specific construction that is reliant on them.15 The prosecution history provides clues, but portions of the prosecution record are arguably confounding. The applicant distinguished 15 For example, Dr. Brecker, in support of Patent Owner’s argument, identifies several of the patent drawings and testifies that, “as is particularly clear in Figure 13 (but also present elsewhere), there are gaps and spaces between the fibers that extend to the frame” and then proceeds to testify that prior art, like Spenser II’s compressible material, “bears no resemblance” to the “exemplary” spacings identified in prosecution. See, e.g., Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 42–43. Dr. Brecker’s articulation of a “spacing” does not seem to add anything meaningful beyond the language of the claim as written. And, simply comparing the patent drawings to the prior art drawings presumes a sort of “know-it when you see it” interpretation—it is not an affirmative construction for a “spacing” as claimed. the claimed “spacings” from “tightly knitted fibers.” Ex. 1002, 1001. At what point, however, does a cloth of “tightly knitted fibers” qualify as more “loosely defined” and come within the scope of the claimed “spacing?”16 Id. The applicant also described the “spacing” in semi-functional terms based on “advantages” provided by the claim feature. See, e.g., id. (asserting, e.g., that the spacing permits “expansion and contraction” with “lesser rigidity”); see also id. at 1133, 1140 (asserting, e.g., “reduce[d] restrictions” and avoidance of “restrained valve foreshortening” with the then-claimed “openings”). It is not, however, evident where the Specification supports such “advantages”—no citations were given in prosecution. And, in prosecution of related applications, applicant argued, for example, that “[w]hile all fibers have some degree of being spaced-apart, the construction from Applicant’s claimed invention clearly requires some level more spacing.” Ex. 1149, 13–14 (assertion differences over “Dehdashtian” (alias to Spenser II)) (emphasis added). On this record, what would suffice as “some level more spacing” is unclear. Id.” slip op. at 39
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,337,834 - Unified Patents, LLC v. Ak Meeting IP LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 5, 2024 · IPR2022-01142 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–14 are unpatentable: claims 1 and 8 are anticipated by and obvious over Roy; claims 1–14 are obvious over Simonoff and Naef; and the listed claims are anticipated by and obvious over Chang.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) would have been a person having, as of the priority date of the ’124 Patent: (1) at least an undergraduate degree in computer science or closely-related field, or similar advanced post-graduate education; and (2) 1–2 years of experience related to multi-user collaboration software. Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 28–30).10 Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Response, but Patent Owner previously stated in its Preliminary Response that it “adopt[s] Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it comports with the technology and claims of the ’124 Patent as well as the asserted prior art.” See generally Resp.; Prelim. Resp. 5. We accept Petitioner’s proposed and unopposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art (or ordinarily skilled artisan), which appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’124 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[]” evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 18
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“We conclude, in agreement with Petitioner, that Mr. Landers is not evidenced to have ordinary skill in the art, as such has been defined above in Section II.B of this Decision, because he appears to have neither the requisite education (he is not evidenced to have a degree in computer science or a closely related field) nor experience (he is not evidenced to have experience in multi-user collaboration software). See Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 5–7, Attachment A; see also Hr’g Tr. 23:5–25:2 (Patent Owner, given the opportunity to identify any evidence of record supporting that Mr. Landers has ordinary skill in the art, identified none). There is no argument by Patent Owner to the contrary. For the reasons above, we give no weight to the testimony presented in the Declarations of Mr. Sunatori and Mr. Landers as to the claim construction, anticipation, and obviousness issues discussed below. D.” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” 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)). Petitioner states, “no construction is necessary, as the claims are obvious under any reasonable construction.” Pet. 7. This statement aligns with the testimony of Dr. Terveen. Ex. 1003 ¶ 24 (“Counsel has not instructed me to apply a construction of the claims notwithstanding their ordinary meaning. Therefore, I have applied the meaning of the claim terms of the Challenged Claims that is generally consistent with their ordinary and customary meaning, as a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood them in the context of the ’124 Patent at the time of the alleged invention.”). Moreover, Petitioner again stated at the final hearing that, “there are no claim construction disputes, at least none explicitly.” Hr’g Tr. 11:21–24. Similarly, Patent Owner states that “[n]o formal claim constructions are necessary because ‘claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Resp. 4 (quoting Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). Therefore, we also do not expressly construe any claim language. slip op. at 21
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Based on the evidence of record, we find that the annotated Roy Figure 4B, above, shows how Roy teaches: (1) user input at a client computer, the user input representing content to be shared, such as game plays, and generating messages defining that content, (2) the content being sent to a server, (3) and the server then outputting related messages to all the networked client computers (including the originating computer) so that (4) shared content (e.g., the game play) is displayed over common content (e.g., a game field) at all networked computers (including the originating computer). The above cited portions of Roy, as explained by Dr. Terveen, disclose a central server architecture for the networking of, and sharing common and user-generated content amongst, client computers, and the inherent latency involved in transmission of messages over such an architecture. See Pet. 10–23; Ex. 1001, 1:60–67, 47:44–48, 49:2–7; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 47–60; Ex. 1005, Abstract, 1:26–48, 1:53–56, 2:1–6, 3:16–56, 3:66–4:1, 4:6–29, 4:44–54, 5:17–6:14, 7:50–52, Figs. 1, 4B, 5A, 5B; Ex. 1020; Ex. 1021. Moreover, to the extent any claim element is not expressly disclosed in Roy, Petitioner has shown that it would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that displaying shared content over common content on networked computers, where users are collaborating or playing a game, where changes are made to the common view efficiently so that only changes are messaged as rendering commands rather than re-rendering the entire “game world” would provide the benefit of preserving bandwidth consumption. Pet. 20–21; Ex. 1003 ¶ 58.” slip op. at 47
Patent outcomesUS 10,963,124 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,963,124
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.